' STATE ANSWERS
Officer Called to Testify How
Nails Were Pulled From
Board.
By the Associated Press.
FLEMINGTON, N. J„ February 9.
—The prosecution today launched its
final blows of rebuttal at the case
Bruno Richard Hauptmann's attorneys
have built up to save the defendant
from death in the electric chair for
the murder of the Lindbergh baby.
The State was determined to prove
conclusively that neither Isador Fisch.
Hauptmann’s dead business associate,
nor Violet Sharpe, the suicide maid,
had the remotest connection with the
crime, as the defense has striven to
Insinuate.
Mrs. Dwight W. Morrow, grand
mother of the murdered child, and
associates of Miss Sharpe were ready
to give a complete account of the
whereabouts of the maid on March
1, 1932, the night defense witnesses
have said a woman resembling her
was in the company of a man resem
bling Fisch, carrying a blanket
wrapped baby.
The prosecution bent its efforts to
show Fisch was not, as a defense
witness testified, in St Raymond's
Cemetery on April 2. 1932, when the
$50,000 ransom was paid.
Other blows will be delivered by
Arthur J Koehler. Federal wood ex
pert. who said he traced the kidnap
ladder directly to Hauptmann, and
additional witnesses.
Hauptmann Looks
Tired at Beginning.
Hauptmann was serious faced when
his guards led him in after Supreme
Court Justice Thomas W. Trenchard's
arrival. The Bronx alien stared at
the audience before sitting down. He
looked tired.
The jurors were seated in the box
at 9:45 am. They gazed about at
the chattering crowd and the court
officers, who were bringing in the
kidnap ladder and other wood ex
hibits.
Court convened promptly at 10 a m.
Attorney General David T. Wilentz
and the prosecution staff arrived after
court convened, trailing across the
room during a short delay
Judge Frank Cleary of Somerville,
who sat in the Hall-Mills murder
trial 10 years ago, was a guest of the
prosecution.
In the trailing line of principals
arriving late In court were Col. Charles
A. Lindbergh. Col. H Norman
Schwarzkopf and Col. Henry Breckin
ridge.
Detective Louis Bornmann of the
State police was the first witness
called.
He told how he obtained the attic
floor board in Hauptmann's garret.
It is from this board the State con
tends one of the ladder uprights was
cut.
Q. Did you get possession of the
nails in that board? A I pulled the
board up, broke it off. and a police
carpenter removed the nails with a
pair of pliers.
Q. And you then took possession
of the nails? A. I did.
Q How many nail holes were
there?
A. Eight.
Wilentz showed him a package of
nails.
Q. Are those the nails?
A. Seven are here.
Q. And you gave me one yestfrday
Which was admitted as evidence?
A. Yes.
Police Officer
Points to Nall Holes in Board.
Bornmann laid the attic board on
the Jury box rah and counted the
nail holes, pointing to each as he
talked.
The police officer then inserted one
of the nails in the hole from which it
had been extracted and Wilentz ex
hibited the board.
Tile attorney general offered the
nails for Identification.
C. Lloyd Fisher, of the defense
counsel, began cross-examination.
Q. Did you testify that the defense
could visit Hauptmann’s house at any
time?
A. If It was present.
Q. Oh, "If it was present." did you
testify to that before?
Wilentz objected and was sus
tained.
Fisher asked if Bornmann. who at
the direction of the State had rented
Hauptmann's apartment after the
arrest, had gone with the defense
counsel to the house.
Wilentz's objection was sustained.
Fisher turned to the board nails.
Q. You say they are the nails be
cause they arc in that package?
A. I know they are the nails be
cause they are in that package.
Q. You identify them from that
paper?
A. 1 know they were taken out of
the board and the package has been
in our possession since.
Bornmann explained he had lifted
the attic board from the joists with his
hands without the aid of tools.
His statement explained the absence j
of tool marks on the board, a point
made by the defense
Mrs. Morrow
Arrives in Court Room.
While Bornmann was testifying Mrs.1
Morrow arrived quietly in court and
took her seat among the rows of spec- :
tators near the defense table. Mrs. '
Anne Lindbergh accompanied her.
Their entrance was so quiet many did
not realize their presence.
Fisher completed his cross-exam
ination and Bornmann was excused
Arthur J. Koehler. Federal wood ex
pert, was called as the next rebuttal
witness.
Wilentz questioned him about nick
marks on wood by planes.
Pope's objection that Koehler was
not a practical carpenter and there
fore could not discuss planes was over
ruled.
Q. What have you to say of the
similarity of the markings left by ]
Hauptmann's plane on the lumber
brought here and the marks on the !
rungs of the ladder?
Pope objected the expert was not \
qualified to testify. He was overruled,
and the witness was allowed to reply.
A. The marks were identical when
the plane was used straight on the
wood. When the plane was held at an
angle, the marks were closer together.
Q. Does that interfere with the
identification of the plane marks
themselves?
A. No, it does not.
Koehler Again
Homs Attention or jury.
The jury was giving Koehler the
same rapt attention he received when
he first took the stand during the
State’s direct case.
Wilentz produced next, the two
short boards used by the defense to
show similarities in wood of allegedly
different origin.
’’These two boards,” Koehler de
clared. “were once in the same piece
for a number of reasons."
Charles J. de Bisschop, lumberman
of Waterbury, Conn., for the defense
testified the boards were not from the
same piece.
Koehler demonstrated a continuity
of “bead” in the center of both boards.
The jury was allowed to examine
them.
Pope's objections to the proceeding
were overruled.
Koehler went on with his “reasons”
for the identity of the boards. The
backs of the boards were of the same
roughness, except one had been
washed and planed slightly.
Q Prior to that planing was that
board of the same roughness as the
other?
A. Yes.
Koehler, speaking in his sure, pro
fessional way, also called the jury’s
attention to the black spots both
boards bore. Indicating, he said, tar
paper or some similar material had
once been nailed to them.
The end grain, or annual rings, cor
responded exactly, he said.
“It is obvious, of course, these two
boards were not exactly next to each
other,” he continued. “However,
when I hold them a few inches apart
the matching of the surface grain is
verv apparent.”
He expressed the opinion that a
piece had been cut from between the
two pieces.
Federal Expert . <
Demonstrates to Jury.
Koehler laid the two pieces on
another board to demonstrate to the
jury that, with a separation of an 1
inch and a quarter, their grain
matched perfectly. The pieces were
fastened with rubber bands in the
position he desired and he held them
oat to the jury for inspection, indi
cating the continuity of ‘‘dark and
light lines” of the grain.
Both Hauptmann and his wife,
Anna, watched the demonstration
intently, their faces serious. 1
Wilentz turned the questioning to
the knots in the ladder rail and attic
board.
Q. Now with relation to the knots,
what was the position of the two In
the tree?
A. This board (attic) was above rail
16 (runner) in the three. ]
Q. Is it a fact (as testified by the
defense) that the butt logs have
more ’ nets?
A. It is common knowledge that the 1
greater number of knots is at the
A
I
top and from butt wood comes the
best, clearest wood.
De Bisscliop, whose defense testi
mony Koehler was so vigorously as
sailing, twisted nervously in his seat
in the witness row near the Haupt
mann table. Several times he half
rose and made ineffectual gestures to
attract the attention of Chief Defense
Counsel Reilly.
The frequency of defense objections
indicated how determined the Haupt
mann counsel was to fight Koehler
every inch of the way. The objections
were futile.
Q. Do you still say that the attic
board and the rail were once of the
same board?
A. Yes.
N'ails Identified
By Federal Forestry Expert.
Koehler testified that the attic
board nails were in his possession after \
removal. He identified them.
Koehler said the nail holes in the
attic board upright of the ladder were
the same size as those found in the ,
attic floor board from which It was
allegedly cut.
He identified a photograph of forest
pine and said that was the type of
tree that yielded North Carolina pine
lumber. The picture was accepted in
evidence.
Wilentz showed Koehler a defense
photograph of a piece of wood, identi
fied by a defense witness as "yellow'’
pine.
"That piece he called yellow pine,”
said the expert, "was white pine.”
Defense counsel sat silent while
Koehler continued his assault on their
case.
The rebuttal turned to Koehler’s
indentificaticn of the grain in the rail
and the attic board. He used his
chart to demonstrate, with Pope.
Reilly and Wilentz gathered about
him.
Wilentz returned to the topic of
nail holes.
Q. There has been some testimony
here, Mr. Koehler, about nail holes.
Prior to the arrest of Hauptmann did
you examine the ladder?
A T HiH
Q. Did you make any observation
is to nail holes on rail 16?
A. I did.
Q. When did you make those ob
servations on rail 16 and what did you
see?
Measured Nail Holes
Before Hauptmann’s Arrest.
A. In 1934 before Hauptmann's ar
rest. I measured the nail holes.
Koehler said he examined them In
1933 also.
Q. Do the nail holes you examined
rorrespond with holes in the joists in
Hauptmann's attic?
A. They do.
Wilentz ended his questioning and
Pope began the cross.
Pope inquired:
Q. You are not a practical car
penter?
A. I’ve done carpentry work, but I’m
lot a carpenter by trade.
Q. Built bird houses and such
;hings, I suppose?
A. I helped my father build houses
ind barns and with cabinet work.
Q. Have you any experience in wood
:raft?
A. Yes, I’ve been out in the woods,
umbering and so forth.
Q. But your knowledge of mlllwork
s only from observation and study?
A. Oh, I’ve had a little practical
sxperience.
Q. Is It possible by machinery to
iivlde an inch into thousands? A. Yes.
Expert Believes
Measurement Impossible.
The technical discussion went on,
Pope attempting to raise doubt of the
‘Xpert’s fine measurements of tool
ind planer marks on wood connected
with the case.
Pope then went oft into an extend
ed interrogation of the witness’
cnowledge of Vernier Calpers and
:heir graduations in thousands of an
nch.
Pope asked if the markings of the
plane on the ladder might not be
Measured.
A. It would be exceedingly im
xjssible, practically impossible be
:ause of the variability of the wood
tself?
Q. But you made no attempt to
Measure those marks.
A. I did not. I measured their dls
tance apart by comparison and ob
servation.
Koehler said he had not taken
“three-dimension" measurements of
the marks on wood, in response to
Pone's technical questions. He said
he had compared distances between.
Q. Tlie distance between nick
marks would vary with the angle the
tool was held?
A. Yes.
Q. You have never testified before
to this sort of thing (tool marks)?
A. No, sir.
Pope, raising his voice for the first
time, demanded that the witness
admit his identification of the Haupt
mann and ladder plane marks was
worthless because he has not meas
ured the dimensions of the microsco
pic plane ridges.
"I don't have to measure two houses
to get the distance between them,”
Koehler replied dryly.
Expert Declares
Plane Marks Correspond.
Pope called out again to the expert
to declare his testimony on the plane
marks was a mere opinion.
“No. I'm stating a fact.” Koehler
replied positively. "Those plane marks
correspond.”
Pope sought to break down Koehl
ers identification of the two short
boards used as a defense exhibit, as
coming from the same piece.
Koehler, taking his caliphers from
his pocket, measured the thickness
of the two boards. A defense witness
testified the boards were of different
origin because of variation of thick
ness.
Koehler announced his measure
ments.
"This board is a scant 23-32 of an
inch on the thick side and a scant
21-32 in the thin side. This board
(the other) is a scant 23-32 on the
thick side and a scant 22-32 on the
thin side.”
Pope produced his own caliphers
and asked for a remeasurement.
__i x i_. xi_ _
'VU kllUV Will v new u
variation in thickness, when using
Pope's caliphers, which, the defense
attorney pointed out, locked.
Pope set the caliphers for the board
alleged to be thicker and showed they
were loose on the other.
The jury made an examination of
the boards with the tool.
Mrs. Rosie Pill, juror No. 2, sup
pressed a chuckle, as the foreman,
Charles S. Walton, sr„ moved the
caliphers along both boards, apparent
ly noting very little variation In
thickness.
Koehler identified a nail hole in
one of the short boards as “old,” over
Wilentz's objection. Wilentz implied,
in his argument, that the hole might
have been made last night. He said
the boards had not been left with
other exhibits over night.
Pope asked the expert to point out
plane marks on the rough side of one
of the boards, as he had testified.
Koehler indicated the smoothness of
the wood.
Q. But do you see any plane marks?
A. I don’t think I can in this light.
Koehler testified the saw marks at
the ends of the boards did not appear
the same.
Q. Is it your idea, then, that for the
purpose of deceiving us the witness
cut them apart and cut a short piece
t)ff?
A. That seems to be what occurred.
Q. And by the grain you say these
were once the same piece?
A. Not that alone.
Q. I believe you said you examined
the ladder for nail holes in 1933?
A. Yes, in March.
Expert Asked to
Explain Staggering of Nails.
Q. Then how do you account fori
the staggering of nails in rail 16?
A. The joist underneath It in the
ittic was spliced.
Pope took two pieces of pine and
gave it to the witness and asked If
the end grains matched.
A. They do not.
Q. Ah, but they match much better
than the end grains on the ladder and
ittic board you try to match.
Koehler smiled at him before re
plying.
A. They do not.
Q. The ends of the ladder rail and
the floor board do not match at all,
lo they?
A. Yes, they do.
Again Koehler smiled.
Pope indicated Koehler’s chart
o
!♦
showing connecting pencil lines be
tween the grain marks of the ladder
rail and the attic board.
Q. That is merely your opinion
what the missing block looked like?
A. I'm showing there how corre
sponding rings in the two con
nected up.
Koehler said he would not say what
the short missing piece was like, but
it was “his opinion" that lines he drew
showed how the two pieces connected.
Pope tried to show that “butt lum
ber” was known among lumbermen as
the section of a mature tree trunk
near the larger branches.
Koehler said he understood “butt
lumber” was always taken from the
base of the trunk.
Wilentz asked a single question on
redirect.
Q. After that examination by Mr
Pope in all those questions and an
swers was there anything that would
cause you to change your opinion
■ that S226 tthe attic board) and rail
! 16 were once part of the same piece
of wood?
Koehler looked straight at the jury.
“Nothing,” he answered emphati
cally.
He was then excused and a five
minute recess taken at 11:49 am.
Court resumed at 11:59 a m.
Leo Singer, a gray-haired, erect
man. was the first witness called
after the recess.
Singer is the man Louis Kiss, de
fense witness, said he delivered w
quart of rum to on the kidnap night.
Kiss said he saw Hauptmann in the
Bronx on his way to deliver the
linuor.
Question on Radio
Thrown Out
Wilentz questioned Singer.
Q. Do you know Louis Kiss?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he come to your house In
March, 1932?
A. Near the end of March.
Q. Did you have a radio?
Reilly objected that there was
I nothing in evidence about Singer's
radio.
Wilentz abandoned his effort, but
explained to the court he sought to
show the radio on which Kiss said
he heard the kidnaping announcement
was not bought until March 10, 1932.
Q. Was Kiss at your house on
March 1, 1932?
A. Positively not.
Reilly took the witness.
Q. What is the date you said Kiss
was in your house?
A. Late in March or early In April.
Q. But there is no doubt in your
mind he was at your house?
A. He was there.
Reilly then asked if the witness
had a 21-year-old daughter. Singer
nodded.
Q. And wasn't she very much dis
pleased at seeing her name and ad
dress in the paper in connection with
the story?
A. She was and so was I.
Q. And didn’t she ask you to come
down here and testify to try to coun
teract Mr. Kiss’ testimony and get her
name out of the paper?
A. Positively not.
Q. As a matter of fact, you came
down here at the request of a certain
columnist of a New York newspaper?
A. No.
Q. But you talked to him?
A. Yes, several of them.
Q. Did ne promise your daughter a
part in a play?
A. Positively not.
Singer was excused.
Woman Refute*
Story on Flsch.
Wilentz called next Mrs. Ottila
Hoerber of the Bronx, a middle-aged,
round-faced woman. She testified
that on the night of April 2, 1932, *he
gave a paper, exhibited by Wilentz,
to Isador Flsch, dead Hauptmann
partner.
Wilentz offered the paper for iden
tification but did not press for its
introduction.
The woman's testimony was to re
fute the defense theory that Fisch
collected the Lindbergh ransom the
night of April 2. 1932.
Wilentz ended his questions and
Reilly began cross-examination. The
■lip of paper, Mrs. Hoerber discussed
I
was allegedly a receipt for a partial |
■payment on a loan Fisch was making \
for a business associate.
Q. Isn't this a fact, that after talk
ing to a lawyer and being in Trenton
two nights, you came here aqd testi
fied you saw Fisch the night of April
2, 1932?
A. Yes.
Wilentz interposed.
Q. But you have this paper to re
fresh your memory?
A. Yes.
Witness Fails
To Name Days.
Reilly asked numerous questions de
signed to test the woman’s memory.
She admitted she had made a mistake
about time this week, and was hazy
on dates.
Q. What date was Fisch in your
house?
A. April 2, 1932.
Q. What day of the week was it?
A. It was Saturday night.
Q. What day of the week was April
16?
A. I don’t know.
Q. And April 23?
A. No.
Reilly came back and brought from
the witness that an automobile could
be driven in 15 minutes from Mrs.
Hoerber's home in the Bronx, on the
West Side, to the East Side, where St.
Raymond's Cemetery is located.
She was excused.
Ernest Miller, the first witness to
be called to clear Violet Sharpe, was
then sworn. A tall, thin young man,
he was questioned by Assistant Attor
ney General Robert Peacock.
Q. On March 1, 1932, did you know
Violet Sharpe?
A. I did.
Q. Were you with her that night?
A. I was.
Q. When did you meet her that
night?
A. I met her at the Morrow estate
with Elmer Johnson, and a girl. It
was 8 o'clock.
Q. Where did you go?
A. To Orangeburg Peanut Grill,
that's in New York State.
Q. What time did you get there?
A. About 8:30 or quarter to nine.
Q. Did you stay there?
A. Yes, until 10:30 or 10:45.
Q. What did you do then?
Was With Maid
I'ntil 11 O'Clork.
A. I drove her back to Morrow
estate, Englewood, and left her right
where we got her, at the door of the
Morrow house.
Q What time was that?
A. Eleven o'clock.
Q. And she was in your company
from 8 to 11.
A. Yes.
Q. From the time you met Violet
Sharpe until you returned her to the
Morrow estate at 11 o’clock, you were
with her?
A. Yes. She was with us until I
took her back to the Morrow estate.
Wilentz turned Miller over to Reilly
for cross-examination.
Q. Did you know Violet Sharpe had
a sister (Reilly showed him Violet's
photo?)
A. Yes. But I never saw her sister’s
picture.
"Never mind about pictures," Reilly
said.
Reilly asked Miller if Violet Sharpe
was "a pick-up." The tall young man.
assured in his answers, explained she
was not. He "supposed"’’ she had
trailed him, mistaking him for some
one else.
Reilly and the witness engaged in
an altercation, the attorney asserting
he was amused by the questions.
Miller said he was not and order
was restored by the justice.
Miller was excused, without re-direct
examination.
Catherine Minners, who was in the
party corroborated Miller's story that
the Morrow maid was with them from
8 until about 11.
Reilly began the cross-examination.
At 12:30 p.m., usual time for the
noon recess. Wilentz told Justice
Trenchard he could finish in half an
hour.
Girl Unable to Recall
Events or Dates.
Justice Trenchard ruled the recess
would be taken when Reilly finished
with the witness.
The girl could not recall when she
had first talked to State authorities.
Reilly recited a series of dates about
March 1, 1932, on none of which the
girl could remember what she had
been doing.
Reilly asked the witness the dis
tance from the Morrow estate to the
road house, but the nervous young
girl said she didn't know. The chief
defense counsel got her to say she
was not familiar with the various
ferries.
“You haven't got a very good
memory,” he queried.
"I have a very good memory on the
night of March 1, 1932, though," she
shot back at him.
Reilly released the witness and
Peacock asked when Miss Minners
gave her statement to police.
She said she told the Englewood
police on March 3. 1932.
“You remember because you're
alive.” Reilly observed. f
The witness was excused’ and the
noon recess called.
GOLD NEAR PRISON
Warden Wants to Use Convicts to
Hunt Treasure.
CARSON CITY, Nev., February 9
OP).—Nevada authorities were con
sidering yesterday a proposal that
convicts be permitted to hunt for
buried treasure near the State Peni
tentiary.
Warden Matt Penrose informed the
State Assembly gold bullion was hid
den near the prison following a stage
robbery years ago. The buried treas
ure discussion came up during a
conference on the possibility of de
veloping a gold and copper deposit
near here with the aid of prisoners.
MYSTERIOUSLY INJURED
Police today were attempting to
learn the manner in which Mrs. Mary
Hall, 60, of 2505 Thirteenth street, last
night suffered injuries which necessi
tated her removal to Garfield Hos- ,
pital after she was brought home I
by a stranger, who left without giving I
any information.
Mrs. Hall’s daughter, wife of Wil
liam E. Ellery of the police homicide
squad, said her mother was brought
home about 11 o'clock suffering from
head injuries received either in a fall
or traffic accident.
SPECIAL NOTICES.
NOTICE
_ WILTON J. LAMBERT Receiver. WASH
INGTON AND OLD DOMINION RAILWAY
hereby gives notice that on January 2(i
1035. he fljed with the Interstate Com
merce Commission at Washington. D C
his application for a certificate that the
present and future public convenience and
necessity permit the abandonment by him
of that part of the railroad of the Wash
ington and Old Dominion Railwav extend
ing from Thrifton to Great Falls, a dis
tance of 12.1 miles, in Arlington and Fair
fax Counties. Virginia
. WILTON J. LAMBERT. Receiver.
WASHINGTON AND OLD DOMINION
RAILWAY
WEEKLY TRIPS TO AND FROM BALTI
more; also trips within 24 hours' notice to
«ny point In United States SMITHS
TRANSFER & STORAGE CO. North 3343.
DAILY TRIPS MOVING LOADS AND
part load* to and from Balto Phlla and
New York. Preouent trips to other East
ern cities “Dependable Service Since
1896." THE DAVIDSON TRANSFER *
STORAGE CO phone Decatur 2500
I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
debts other than my own. CHARLES C.
GREEN. 809 E st n.w. 10*
I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
debts contracted for by any one other than
myself. ALTON C. WHITE, 5527 4th st. n.w
___10»
LOOKING FOR WHOLE OR PART LOADS
Irom Atlanta. Ga . or surrounding, terrl
to* y. Returning Feb 10 to 17. Insured
truck. Phone ECONOMICAL. Georgia 0431.
PLAYING CARDS—FREE USE OF PLAY^
ins cards for your next card party! De
posit of 20c per deck required for return
of cards. Also FREE bridge scores and
tally c*r<KV?e rent card tables and
states STORAGE CO.
intn st. n.w. _
A DEAL FUNERAL AT $75
Provides same service as one costing
S500. Don t waste “insurance money."
call DEAL, with 25 years' experience.
Lincoln 8200.
OFFICIAL NOTICES.
BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
the laws of the United States of America
governing the disposition of seized property
of the appraised value of £500.00 or less I
as being subject to forfeiture under the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Laws
of the United States aotice is hereby given
that the following automobiles were seized
In the District of Columbia: December 10.
1934 Bulck coupe, motor No 1824110:
December 29 1934. Chevrolet Coach mo
tor No 1906400: July 10. 1934 Chevrolet
sedan motor No 4561318: December 17.
1934 Chrysler coach, motor No 75173;
November 19. 1934. Dodge coupe, motor
No H-116057; October 19. 1934. Dodge
roadster, motor No. S-15097; September
II 1934. Ford cabriolet, motor No
A1218720; October 19 1934. Ford coupe,
motor No 18-1105629; August 19. 1934.
Ford coupe, motor No 18-686265; Sep
tember 10 1934. Ford coach, motor No.
A2554511: July 14 1934 Ford coach mo
tor No. 18-591383; December 31. 1934.
Ford coach, motor No. 18-705885; January
23 1935 Ford coach, motor No 18
1121482: July 28 1934. Ford sedan, motor
No. A4584556: March 3. 1934 Ford sedan
motor No. A4441S23; August 4 19.14. Ford
aedan motor No 18-560878; September
i5 1934. Ford sedan motor No. A4083517:
une l. 1934 Nash coach, motor No B
10537; November 4. 1934. Packard road
ater. motor No 167626; November *. 1934.
Packard sedan motor no. 223937D: De
cember 24 1934 Plymouth coupe motor
No. 201749: November 28. 1934 Plymouth
aedan. motor No. A101245: January 18.
1935 Pontiac coupe motor No. P-266574;
the causes of seizure being violations of
Sections 3450 and 3453 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States respectively.
Any person or persons claiming any of the
above property are required to appear and
make such claim on or before the twelfth
day of March. 1935 as provided in Section
8460 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States H J. SIMMONS Acting Investi
gator In Charge Alcohol Tax Unit. Treas
ury Department Washington. D. C. Dated
February^ 1935.
J
j Opposing Lawyers Attempt to Set Date for Trial End
Upper left: Attorney General
David T. Wilentz, who has been
conducting the State's case against
Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and
Edward J. Reilly, chief defense
counsel, looking over the calendar
and trying to select the day which
they believe will see the conclusion
of the trial. Wilentz smiles as
Reilly picks February 11.
Upper right: Hanna Fisch, sis
ter of the late Isidor Fisch, the
man the defense maintains left the
Lindbergh ransom money with
Hauptmann, pictured after testi
fying as a rebuttal witness. She
said her brother died a poor man.
Lower: Gen. John F. O'Ryan,
former New York City police com
missioner. with his son. Holmes
O'Ryan, and daughter, Mrs. S. B.
Purdy, as they arrived at the Flem
ington. N. J„ Court House yester
day. The former testified that the
ransom money was found before
Hauptmann explained where it
was.
—A. P. and Wide World Photos.
___
The Night Final Edition
on White Paper
Beginning next Monday, February 11, the use ot pink
paper In the Night Final Edition of The Evening Star will
be discontinued and thereafter the front page of this edition
will be printed on White paper.
RED STARS
A row of Red Stars will be printed down the right-hand
margin of the front page to identify the Night Final Edition.
Call National 5000 and order the “Night Final" de
livered regularly to your home, and delivery will start
immediately.
*
THREE WITNESSES
Divergence of Experts’ Tes
timony May Serve as
Aid to Hauptmann.
BY ANNE GORDON SUYDAM.
Special Dispatch to The Ptar.
FLEMINGTON, N. J., February 9.
—Isador Fisch, nebulous little fur
rier whose name has been tossed
first vaguely and then menacingly
about this court room for these five
weeks, has been at last placed in a
definite spot on the night of March
1, and a spot far removed from the
scene of the kidnaping. Three per
sons rose yesterday to testify that he
had been in the house of Mr. and
Mrs. Henry Jung from about 8 to
11:30 that night, whither he had
gone at the behest of his friend
Charles Schessler, who was sick, to
pay off a debt of Schessler's to the
Jungs.
This Is a strange case indeed in
which a dead man stands accused
by his accused living friend, whose
greatest strength lies in the ability
of his counsel to prove the charge
which he has brought so elaborately
against the dead. There are other
outs for Hauptmann, of course. The
divergence of experts’ testimony, the
lack of conclusive proof of murder
on his part, the hesitancy of one or
12 persons to condemn a man upon
circumstantial evidence alone, may
well save Hauptmann from the elec
tric chair. But in the consciousness
of all, It Is by the proved guilt of
Isador Fisch that Bruno Richard
Hauptmann hopes to be absolved.
All Hearsay About risen.
Of course, none of us knows any
thing save by hearsay of the char
acter and customs of this plaintive,
consumptive little phantom. Yet with
all the aspersions which have been
cast upon him, it is difficult to pic
ture him as the arch-criminal which
Bruno and Mr. Reilly would have
him be.
We see him as his landlady pictures
him, occupying the smallest and
cheapest room in her house, owning
“one suit mit two pair pants, and
one sheeply overcoat,” and we see
him leaving her house on his last
long journey with all his wordly pos
sessions packed in two small satchels.
We see him lying sick and hopeless
In his berth on the steamer which
was bearing him home, with the
small, blue bottle by his side, while
his friend Henry Uhlig eases his last
remaining days on earth. And final
ly we see him dragging himself off
the train at Leipzig into the waiting
arms of his sister, whose voice trem
bled on the stand yesterday as she
told of her shock at the sight of this
emaciated creature, whom she could
scarcely believe to be her brother.
Hanna Fisch was a good witness
and a sympathetic person. Her de
mearor was as simple and dignified
as her well-tailored dark gray suit
and becoming black felt hat. She in
dulged in no histrionics either tearful
or defiant, her voice was low and well
modulated, and she used her hands
only in rather appealing attempts
to convey her words through the in
terpreter to the court. It was difficult
to conceive of this quiet, direct young
| woman as the sister of the supposedly
slinky, furtive Isador Fisch who has
crept darkly through this case, and
who his sister brought forth at last
yesterday into the pallid light of
death.
Borrowed for Bad Investment.
Whatever the nature of Fisch. there
is something repugnant to the just
mind in vilifying the name of a man
who can no longer defend himself.
Even his one time friend. Henry
Uhlig. who was called by the defense
to aid their case for Hauptmann and
accordingly against Fisch, had no
worse to say of him than he had bor
rowed money from him for a
“phoney” investment. And of all the
witnesses who have testified for the
defense, there is not one who has
been able under oath to place him in
a damning situation save the man
who hopes to build his own salvation
from the ashes of Isador's downfall—
Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Take the defenses witnesses who
have been called to link this man with
the crime and vou will understand how
fantastically flimsy is the case against
him. Of all who attended the farewell
party, given to Fisch before he sailed
for Germany, Hans Kloppenburg
alone was able to state that he saw
him bringing a package the size of a
shoe box into the Hauptmann home,
and even he admitted frankly that he
did not know whether Fisch had taken
it away or not. The sturdiest witnesses
called upon to identify his photograph
as that of a man seen carrying a
ladder near Hopewell on the night of
March 1, or jumping off a cemetery
wall on the night of the ransom pay
ment, April 2, could only declare that
it bore a “strong resemblance.” while
one witness confidently called by
Reilly yesterday declared positively
upon seeing Fisch’s photograph that
“he was not the man” whom he had
seen with a ladder in Hopewell.
Case Grows Shadowy,
As defense has produced witness
after witness who claim to have seen
both men and women with ladders in
several kinds of cars, the case against
Fisch seems to grow more shadowy
than ever. It is true that the identi
fication of Hauptmann by the octo
genarian State’s witness Amandus
Hochmuth, who says he saw him with
a ladder in Lindbergh's lane, may also
seem a bit hazy, but at least no one
has attempted to refute his story, as
has been convincingly done with most
of these defense witnesses.
The testimony of Mrs. Hoff, who
claims that Isador, along with her
friend Mr. Budreau, came to her house
and attempted to leave a package was
contradicted yesterday by Budreau
himself. The testimony of Lou Hard
ing, who identified Fisch's picture as
that of a man carrying a ladder near
Hopewell on March 1, became of little
consequence when a State trooper an
nounced yesterday that Harding had
MRS. MORROW AIDS
ATTACK ON ALIBIS
Anne Returns to Court With
Mother, Called for
Rebuttal.
(Continued From First Page.)
are up at the top of the tree. It is
also known by any one who has any
experience with cutting of logs and
lumber that the butt logs produce
most of the clear grades of lumber
and the knotty lumber comes from the
top logs. In fact, logs are sometimes
left in the woods, top logs are left
In the woods, simply because they
are too knotty, not because they are
too small."
Koehler said he examined the lad
der rail in 1933. before Hauptmann's
arrest, and saw in It the four nail
holes which he said jibed with nail
holes in the joists of Hauptmann's
attic. Dr. E. M. Hudson, a New York
physician, who testified for the de
fense, said there was only one nail
hole In the piece when he examined it.
The Federal wood man said he not
only observed the nail holes, but made
a diagram of them.
Koehler Tpholds Story.
Frederick A. Pope of defense counsel
directed his cross-examination toward
an attempt to weaken Koehler's cal
culations. The wood man appeared
at no loss to answer any of the highly
technical questions.
The questioning became a duel with
calipers for w-eapons. Both attorney
ana witness arew out emu ms u»u
pair and began splitting Inches injo
the ten-thousandths. Jurors and
spectators listened open-mouthed to
the battle as calipers slipped over
wood for fine measurements.
Pope charged Koehler's whole pre
mise about the plane marks failed
since he had not established the di
mensions of the solids of the ridges
on the ladder and the dimension of
the nicks on the plane blade.
"I can measure the distance be
tween houses in a block without
measuring the size of the houses,”
the expert retorted.
Pope insisted it was mere opinion.
“No,” said Koehler. ”1 say that I
am expressing a fact. Those plane
marks correspond.”
By Tuesday night, both sides agreed
today, the case should be in the hands
of the eight men and four women
jurors.
Attorney General Wilentz had about
10 witnesses with which to complete
rebuttal, and expected to conclude his
case late !n the afternoon.
Defense Counsel Edward J. Reilly
expected to call only one sur-rebuttal
witness before closing the door to fur- '
ther testimony.
Prior to conclusion of the State’s
rebuttal testimony, there was some
doubt over the advisability of Reilly’s
desired witness, Arch W. Loney, P. W.
A. wood expert, at Washington, from
whom Reilly had planned to adduce
testimony that Hauptmann did not
make the kidnap ladder, and that
wood from the Hauptmann attic did
not go into its construction.
Loney, m Washington last night,
wired Reilly he would decline the de
fense invitation because there was
insufficient time to study the wood.
He indicated, however, he would be
willing to appear if the ease was car
ried over until next week to allow him
time tn make an examination.
Summation Monday.
Summations were scheduled to begin
Monday, with Anthony M. Hauck, Jr.,
Hunterdon County prosecutor, making
an opening statement to the Jury. The
defense will follow.
"The summation for the defense
will require a full day Monday, ’ Reilly
said.
Attorney General Wilentz expected
to take about three hours Tuesday in
summing up for the State. No sus
pension of the trial will be ordered
for the usual Lincoln birthday anni
versary holiday Tuesday.
Hauptmann watched the concluding
day of testimony today with some
satisfaction.
"I think you have done a good job,"
he told Defense Attorney Egbert Rose
crans for the defense staff.
"I am satisfied. I think the jury
now has a good chance to see for
themselves that I had nothing to do
with the Lindbergh kidnaping. I
have a clear mind on it. and regard
less of what comes it will not bother
me.”
"Do you mean your conscience Is
clear?” questioned Rosecrans.
"That's it,” the defendant replied.
not even referred to the ladder at the
time. The testimony of Sam Strep
pone. who said that Fisch had at
tempted to leave a package the size of
a shoe box in his radio repair shop,
was negated by his record of mental
incompetence.
State Support Flimsy.
And so It goes. It may be that the
State's support of Fisch's character is
equally flimsy; it may be that there
is no definite proof that he was tn
the Jungs' home on the night of
March 1, but it is certain that as di
rect evidence no more has been
proved against him than has been
proved in his favor. If a man be
innocent in the eyes of the law until
proved guilty, then Isador Fisch is
as pure as a new-born babe.
Hauptmann grows whiter as nis
case grows darker. He knows that
other members of the Fisch family
will come on; he must know that
there is not evidence in all this world
to place Isador Fisch on that ladder,
and he knows that with all the de
fense's valiant efforts they have been
unable to convince even the most
credulous that Fisch wrote those ran
som notes. In fact, except for a few
vague suggestions that he might have
copied Hauptmann's writing, they
have never tried.
By means of cumulative suggestion,
but with sudden clarity, this seems to
be the case not of "the State of New
Jersey versus Bruno Richard Haupt
mann," but of Bruno Richard Haupt
mann against Isador Fisch.
UNITED FOOD STORES’ FOURTH ANNUAL
FOOD
SHOW
Washington Auditorium—February 6th to 16th
$2,000.00 Today't Program «“3™»
~ 1 __ _ 2:30 Baby Contest TICKETS
IN 3:15 20 Big Food Prises AT ANY
PRT7FS 7:45 20 Big Food UNITED FOOD
PIVIDM 9:00 Fashion Review STORE
yVJbW 10:15 Kelvinator Electric Regular
FREE Refrigerator Admission, I5e
* A
i, -*-V