Hauptmann's Ladder : A Step-by-Step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping [1 ed.] 9781612778334, 9781606351932

Citation preview

Job Name:

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

true Crime history series

--

/355348t

harold schechter, editor

Twilight of Innocence: The Disappearance of Beverly Potts James Jessen Badal Tracks to Murder Jonathan Goodman Terrorism for Self-Glorification: The Herostratos Syndrome albert Borowitz Ripperology: A Study of the World’s First Serial Killer and a Literary Phenomenon robin odell The Good-bye Door: The Incredible True Story of America’s First Female Serial Killer to Die in the Chair diana Britt Franklin Murder on Several Occasions Jonathan Goodman The Murder of Mary Bean and Other Stories elizabeth a. de Wolfe Lethal Witness: Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Honorary Pathologist andrew rose Murder of a Journalist: The True Story of the Death of Donald Ring Mellett Thomas Crowl Musical Mysteries: From Mozart to John Lennon albert Borowitz The Adventuress: Murder, Blackmail, and Confidence Games in the Gilded Age Virginia a. mcConnell Queen Victoria’s Stalker: The Strange Case of the Boy Jones Jan Bondeson Born to Lose: Stanley B. Hoss and the Crime Spree that Gripped a Nation James G. hollock Murder and Martial Justice: Spying, “Terrorism,” and Retribution in Wartime America meredith lentz adams The Christmas Murders: Classic Stories of True Crime Jonathan Goodman The Supernatural Murders: Classic Stories of True Crime Jonathan Goodman Guilty by Popular Demand: A True Story of Small-Town Injustice Bill osinski Nameless Indignities: Unraveling the Mystery of One of Illinois’s Most Infamous Crimes susan elmore Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-Step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping richard t. Cahill Jr.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder a step-by-step analysis of the lindbergh Kidnapping

richard t. cahill jr.

the kent state university press

kent, ohio

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

© 2014 by The Kent state university press, Kent, ohio 44242 all rights reserved library of Congress Catalog Card number 2013042382 isbn 978-1-60635-193-2 manufactured in the united states of america all photographs are reproduced compliments of the new Jersey state police museum. library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication data Cahill, richard t., Jr., 1971– hauptmann’s ladder : a step-by-step analysis of the lindbergh kidnapping / richard t. Cahill, Jr. pages cm. — (true crime history series) includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-60635-193-2 (pbk.) ∞ 1. lindbergh, Charles augustus, 1930–1932—Kidnapping, 1932. 2. hauptmann, Bruno richard, 1899–1936. 3. Kidnapping—new Jersey—hopewell. 4. murder—new Jersey— hopewell. 5. Criminal investigation—united states—history—20th century. 6. Forensic sciences—united states—20th century. 7. trials (Kidnapping)—new Jersey. 8. trials (murder)—new Jersey. i. title. hv 6603. l5c34 2014 364.15'4092—dc23 2013042382 18 17 16 15 14

5 4 3 2 1

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

i dedicate this book to my grandmother, Corinne Cahill (1910–2002), and my father, richard t. Cahill sr. (1932–2012), two of the finest people i have ever met.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Contents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Acknowledgments Introduction “They’ve Stolen Our Baby” Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact J. F. C. Violet and Curtis: Two Bogus Stories Begin “Cemetery John” The Negotiations Continue Double-Crossed The Wild-Goose Chase “I Am Perfectly Satisfied That It Is My Child” The Police Take the Reins The Sad End of Violet Sharp From Bad to Worse The Frustration Mounts Shoenfeld and Koehler The Trail of Gold Bruno Richard Hauptmann The Interrogation Begins “I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy” More Pieces to the Puzzle Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey Extradition The Bull of Brooklyn The Trial of the Century Begins “Der Alte Ist Verrückt” “John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann” Paper Evidence

ix xi 1 7 17 34 43 49 59 76 86 95 103 108 116 122 129 140 146 152 162 173 183 192 201 207 218 227 239

| vii |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| viii |

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

--

/355348t

contents

“He Is Conceding the Defendant to the Electric Chair!” The Prosecution Gains Momentum The State Rests Hauptmann Takes the Stand More Testimony from the Hauptmanns “Where Are You Getting These Witnesses? They Are Killing Me” The Defense Rests Rebuttal and Summations Wilentz Closes The Verdict Epilogue Notes Index

245 253 259 267 277 286 293 304 314 324 331 346 391

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

acknowledgments

This book is the culmination of many years of hard work. it would not have been possible without the assistance of numerous people along the way. i must first offer my thanks to dr. James F. Cotter. it was his assignment in Freshman english that started me on this journey. additionally, his thorough education on proper grammar and use of the english language played no small part in my ability to write this book. Though i often lamented the substantial amount of red ink on my corrected papers, i appreciate it now. i further offer my thanks and appreciation to mark Falzini, the archivist of the new Jersey state police museum and archives. his knowledge of the lindbergh kidnapping was of an importance exceeded only by the value of his friendship. Completion of this book could not have been achieved without the assistance and professionalism of Joyce harrison, harold schechter, and the entire staff at Kent state university press, as well as Valerie ahwee, my copyeditor. on a more personal note, i cannot thank my family enough for all their help and assistance. my wife, laura, was eternally patient with all of the trips, research, writing, and so forth. The journey was long and difficult, but she was by my side the entire way. my mother, margaret, served as a sounding board and used her skills as a retired schoolteacher to edit the original manuscript, while my sister, Julie, thought up the title for this book. my friend, mark ingoglio, also took me on a tour of the various sites of interest throughout the Bronx. i cannot thank them enough. richard t. Cahill Jr. october 3, 2013

| ix |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

introduction

i first became interested in the lindbergh kidnapping case when i was a freshman in college. my english professor assigned the class a research paper on a topic the writer had never read about or researched. i went to the school library and eventually found a small hardcover book with brief articles on a variety of controversial topics. The book had chapters on Jesse James and Billy the Kid and whether they died in the manner recorded by history.1 Then i happened upon an article on the lindbergh kidnapping. as i read it, i recalled seeing an episode of an old show hosted by leonard nimoy called In Search of, which dealt with the case. The only thing i could remember about the show was that a baby had been kidnapped and killed, and that a man had been convicted and executed for the crime. The show’s guest, a man with a mustache, felt strongly that the convicted man was actually innocent.2 i decided to make the lindbergh kidnapping the topic for my research paper. over the next few days, i read Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, by anthony scaduto, as well as two magazine articles on the case.3 after this very brief amount of research, i wrote a seven-page paper in which i proclaimed that Bruno richard hauptmann was an innocent man framed by the police. as i look back now, i realize that my conclusion was faulty, my so-called facts incorrect, and my research sloppy. i learned a good lesson from that paper when i reread it years later. The lindbergh kidnapping case is extremely complicated. Before anyone expresses an opinion on the matter, a great deal more is required than simply reading one book or magazine article. many of the secondary source books and articles on this subject have the same problem: limited research followed by weak conclusions without evidentiary support. The result is that many falsehoods have now become accepted as facts and are regularly printed in modern articles and books. The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann,4 by sir ludovic Kennedy, was well written and further cemented my belief in the innocence of Bruno richard hauptmann, but caused me to change my opinion concerning the body found on may 12, 1932. Kennedy thoroughly convinced me that the body had to have been that of the lindbergh baby. | xi |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| xii |

--

/355348t

introduction

scaduto had argued that it was not, but never made clear exactly whose body he thought it was. my thoughts on the case remained generally entrenched until i read The Lindbergh Case, by Jim Fisher.5 This work took the position that hauptmann was guilty as charged. Fisher presented some devastating arguments against hauptmann. on the other hand, Kennedy blasted several holes in the case. i still stubbornly felt that hauptmann was innocent. i simply could no longer give a good rational argument to support my belief. unable to reach a conclusion that satisfied me, i decided to look briefly at some of the original material on the case and resolve, once and for all, the guilt or innocence of Bruno richard hauptmann. i figured i could accomplish my goal in a few weeks. my “brief ” look at the case of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann has gone on for over twenty years now. i have since completed law school and become a practicing attorney. i have traveled to the new Jersey state police museum and learning Center archives, as well as the new york City municipal archives on several occasions. i have gone through thousands of FBi and other federal documents relating to the case, and have so much material about the lindbergh kidnapping that an entire room in my house is dedicated to the case. i have debated this case several times and have even lectured on it at rutgers university. after all these years of hard work and research, i can state that this is without question the most fascinating, difficult, frustrating, interesting, and complex case i have ever come across. There are so many different types of evidence presented, as well as some of the most colorful and pathetic characters involved in this trial. i have now reached certain definitive conclusions about the case and the guilt or innocence of Bruno richard hauptmann. This book constitutes a summary of all the information and evidence i collected, as well as my ultimate conclusions. When i made the decision to write a book on this subject, several people asked what purpose my book would serve. There already are numerous books, articles, and newspaper stories about this case that give a wide variety of opinions. is there need of one more? in considering this question, it became clear to me that my book needed to offer more than just my educated opinion on the subject. i therefore reread the books written about the lindbergh kidnapping in the last thirty years. What astounded me was that so many of these books offered “facts” about the case that were simply not true. often incorrect statements in these books are cited by secondary sources to the point where they have become accepted as facts. Thus, the person who casually examines the case is forced to base his or her opinions and conclusions on faulty information. By way of example, there is an allegation made by anthony scaduto in Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann that tom Cassidy, a reporter for the Daily News, planted false evidence against Bruno richard hauptmann by writing the address and phone number of the kidnapping go-between in hauptmann’s

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Introduction

--

/355348t

| xiii |

home closet in order to get a scoop for his newspaper.6 There is no source given in the book for this bold assertion. The reality is that there was a rumor in 1934 that the evidence had been planted by mr. Cassidy. however, mr. Cassidy did not have access to the closet and there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. moreover, Bruno richard hauptmann admitted that the information found in his closet was in his own handwriting.7 The damage has been done, however. numerous secondary sources state as a fact that tom Cassidy planted evidence against Bruno richard hauptmann.8 yet, this is blatantly untrue. There are other examples of such falsehoods. They are not limited to books and articles contending that hauptmann was innocent, as those who wish to demonstrate his guilt present similar falsehoods.9 in fact, so many of the modern books and articles have relied on secondary sources and prior works containing misinformation and outright dishonesty that it has become nearly impossible for the casual reader to get an accurate presentation of the true facts and evidence of this case. The lindbergh kidnapping has been called the crime of the century. What has become the real crime of the century is the reckless and sometimes intentional distortion of the facts and evidence of this case. perhaps the most transparent example of this was the hBo movie, Crime of the Century. This shameless piece of propaganda offered such a butchered version of the facts that it barely resembled the lindbergh kidnapping. anyone seeing this movie could not help but conclude that the new york and new Jersey police were evil and incompetent, and that Bruno richard hauptmann was a poor tortured soul who never committed so much as a traffic infraction. Therefore, i have a second purpose in writing this book. it is my intention to provide solid, credible facts, accurate information, and evidence with supporting documentation and notes to give people ready access to the truth about the lindbergh kidnapping. Granted, there are some pieces of evidence that are contradictory in nature. i have tried to present both sides of the coin in these circumstances. ultimately, my goal is for the readers to reach their own conclusions. Certainly, everyone is entitled to form his or her own opinions. i do offer my opinion in various parts of this work. There are just certain portions of this case that require well-reasoned theories, as the evidence is unclear. an excellent example is the question of whether hauptmann, assuming he was guilty, had an accomplice. since the investigation stopped with hauptmann’s conviction, there is precious little evidence on this point. it is therefore necessary to engage in some speculation using established facts and evidence as a springboard. i have done my best to separate and make clear the distinction between my opinions and speculations and the established facts of the case. ultimately, i will offer my opinion on the most important questions still lingering today. my conclusions are based on evidence. i have no agenda or need to prove hauptmann either guilty or innocent. my objective is to report the truth.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 1 |

“They’ve stolen our Baby”

in 1932, Charles lindbergh was the most famous man in america, if not the entire world. his successful solo flight across the atlantic ocean in 1927 catapulted him from relative obscurity to the front pages of every newspaper in the world. From that moment on, his every move was followed by reporters, well-meaning admirers, and crackpots. every event in his life seemed to generate more and more publicity. he was given numerous awards and commendations, including a commission in the united states army as a colonel and the Congressional medal of honor. While lindbergh enjoyed the various honors bestowed upon him, he greatly resented the intrusion and near elimination of privacy. on may 27, 1929, lindbergh married anne morrow, daughter of dwight morrow, ambassador to mexico. The press could not get enough of this event. in fact, lindbergh even mentioned the media coverage of his wedding in his memoirs, which were published shortly after his death. he wrote, “after our wedding, we spent a fortnight trying to avoid the press in a small motor launch cruising off long island and new england Coasts.”1 When Charles and anne lindbergh began searching for a place to build their home, privacy, seclusion, and freedom from the press were substantial considerations. during the search, the lindberghs first lived in rented rooms in an uptown new york hotel and then in a rented farmhouse near princeton, new Jersey.2 Various sites were considered in new york, new Jersey, and Connecticut. ultimately, the young couple decided on a remote location in new Jersey that Charles and anne had seen while flying over the sourland mountains. The property they selected was 390 acres overlapping the hunterdon and mercer County lines. it was rocky, unfertile, and wooded; however, the view was spectacular from many different points of the property and there were numerous trails for hiking. of particular interest to Charles was the fact that the property was situated well for flying an airplane and had limited access for cars. in addition to a house, the lindberghs intended to build a small airplane hangar and landing strip so Charles would be able to fly almost to his doorstep. part of the house would include a library, and the basement would have a biological laboratory.3 | 1 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 2 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

a famous picture of the lindbergh baby taken at his first birthday party.

Construction began on the lindberghs’ dream home in the summer of 1930. however, something else wonderful happened that same summer. on June 22, 1930, the lindberghs’ first son was born. he was seven pounds six ounces and his parents named him Charles augustus lindbergh Jr. There was little doubt that daddy lindbergh was the most popular man in america. now Baby lindbergh became the most famous child. admirers sent thousands of gifts, telegrams, and letters at the announcement of his birth. The media gave the child nicknames before his real name was even made public. in recognition of his father’s accomplishments, the child was called “The eaglet,” “Baby eagle,” and “little lindy.” There was even a song written entitled, “hello, young lindy.” The media’s interest in the child was so great that a standing offer of $2,000, a tremendous amount of money in those days, was offered for any “secrets of the household.”4 The lindberghs became very secretive about their son as they felt the constant media exposure was not a positive influence. unfortunately, the attempt to protect him led to numerous rumors that the child was somehow deformed. The media speculated that they were being kept away from the child because Charles lindbergh was embarrassed about his son’s imperfection. it never occurred to the reporters that they were the real reason for the lindberghs’ overprotectiveness of their child.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“They’ve Stolen Our Baby”

--

/355348t

| 3 |

Time magazine issued an article in response to a rumor in late 1931 that the child was deaf as the result of exposure to loud airplane noise immediately prior to his birth. The rumor was so rampant that Will rogers himself wrote a column to try and put the baseless allegations to rest. The rumors were so out of control that Charles felt compelled to call a press conference. Five newspaper chains were not permitted to attend as they had actually published stories claiming that the child was deformed.5 lindbergh specifically addressed the media about their coverage of his son by saying, “one thing i do hope for him, and that is when he is old enough to go to school, there will be no reporters dogging his footsteps.” The lindbergh home was completed in 1931, though landscaping and other minor details still needed to be done.6 The house itself was made of natural fieldstone coated in whitewash, and the roof was of gray slate. The interior consisted of a living room, dining room, library, kitchen with a large pantry, four bathrooms, five bedrooms, servants’ quarters, and a three-car garage. The child’s nursery was in the southeast section of the house, directly above the library. in January 1932, the lindberghs started spending their weekends at the sourland estate. during the week, the couple resided with anne’s parents at their estate in englewood, new Jersey. two servants, oliver and elsie Whateley, a middle-aged couple who had worked for the lindberghs for nearly two years, lived full-time at the sourland estate. They had been staying and working at englewood, but moved into the newly constructed home in december 1931. The lindberghs lived in sourland on the weekends and in englewood during the week until the weekend of February 27 and 28, 1932. on saturday, February 28, the baby showed symptoms of a cold. he was cared for over the remainder of the weekend and had greatly improved. monday, February 29, proved to be a very windy and cold day, so it was decided that the child should remain at sourland for a few more days to recover completely. The baby seemed to be feeling better on the morning of march 1, 1932. unfortunately, anne was now feeling the symptoms of this same cold. she called Betty Gow at the morrow estate and asked her to come to the house early. Betty Gow was hired by the lindberghs in February 1931 as nursemaid for the baby. she had recently arrived in the country from Glasgow, scotland, and was highly recommended to the lindberghs by mary Beattie, who herself was a maid in the employ of anne’s mother. Betty did not normally accompany the lindberghs to the sourland estate on the weekends, but since anne was feeling ill, Betty’s services were required. Betty had initially planned to spend that evening with her boyfriend, henry “red” Johnson, whom she had met during the summer of 1931 while in maine. They had continued to see one another thereafter, and red would frequently visit Betty at the englewood estate. having been ordered to the sourland estate, Betty tried

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 4 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

to contact red to cancel their date. she placed a phone call to the boardinghouse where Johnson was staying, but could not reach him. she left a message for him instructing him to call her at the sourland estate and had henry, the morrows’ chauffeur, drive her to the lindbergh home in new Jersey.7 Betty arrived at the sourland estate at approximately 2 p.m. anne was able to get some rest while Betty cared for the boy. Throughout the day, Betty, anne, and elsie Whateley played with the child. By all accounts, he seemed to be feeling better and was rather playful. during the afternoon, around 3:30 p.m., anne decided to go for a walk on the estate grounds. While walking near the nursery window, she tossed several small pebbles at the window and was able to get the attention of Betty, who held up little Charlie so he could see and wave to his mother. as anne laughed and smiled, she had no idea that this would be one of the final moments she would have with her son.8 around 7:30 p.m. that evening, Betty Gow dressed the baby for bed. Because he was only just getting over a cold, she decided to make him a special shirt. she cut a flannel petticoat into a small shirt for the child, and sewed it together with some blue thread she obtained from elsie Whateley’s room.9 Then just before placing the shirt on the baby, she rubbed some Vicks Vaporub on the child’s chest. a second shirt was placed over the homemade one. The baby was also dressed in a pair of diapers, rubber pants over that, and then a one-piece dr. denton’s sleeping suit.10 to prevent the child from sucking his thumbs, Betty placed two metal thumb guards over them. strings that wrapped around the guards were tied and secured snugly over the sleeves of the baby’s outfit. The child was put into his crib and tucked in with a blanket pinned to the mattress with two large safety pins to prevent him from getting out of the bed.11 once the child was secure in his crib, Betty and mrs. lindbergh closed the shutters in the room. They were unable to fasten the shutters on the southeast window because they were warped and could not be fully closed. anne then left the room while Betty remained for a few minutes longer. Before leaving, she opened the French window slightly to allow for some air circulation, turned off the light, and left the room. she washed some of the baby’s clothes, which had been soiled earlier in the evening when the boy resisted taking his milk of magnesia. she hung up the wet clothing to dry in the basement. at approximately 7:50 p.m., Betty checked on the child and found him sleeping soundly. it would be the last time anyone, other than the kidnapper, saw the child alive.12 Betty then went to elsie Whateley’s room on the far side of the house. Charles lindbergh did not arrive at the house until about 8:25 p.m. that evening. he had spent his day in new york visiting the offices of pan-american airways, transcontinental air transport, inc., and the rockefeller institute of medical research, as well as his dentist.13 Charles had been scheduled to appear at the Waldorf-astoria hotel as the guest of honor for a dinner held by new york university. due to a scheduling error, lindbergh failed to attend the dinner and came home

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“They’ve Stolen Our Baby”

--

/355348t

| 5 |

instead. This innocent error has been used by authors of a tabloid-style book to support a theory that lindbergh actually killed his own son and then fabricated the kidnapping story.14 anne and Charles went upstairs together to wash up and had dinner together around 8:30 p.m. in the dining room. during dinner, around 8:45 p.m., Betty received a phone call from red Johnson, which she took in the kitchen. Johnson told Betty he was sorry that they could not get together as previously planned. he also told her that he was leaving for Connecticut that evening. dinner concluded around 9 p.m., and the lindberghs went into the living room for a few minutes. While they were there, around 9:05 p.m., Charles heard something that sounded like “the top slats of an orange box falling off a chair, which i assumed to be in the kitchen.”15 The evidence seems to suggest that the kidnapper was at that moment descending the ladder with the child when the ladder broke. lindbergh asked his wife if she had heard the sound, and anne indicated that she had not. it was thus forgotten about until the discovery of a wooden ladder some time later that evening.16 it is a shame that lindbergh did not choose to investigate this sound. had he stepped outside and seen the kidnapper, the kidnapping might have been thwarted. however, it was a windy night and the sound could easily have been mistaken for snapping tree branches or rattling window shutters. a few minutes later, anne and Charles went upstairs to their bedroom and talked for a few minutes. Charles took a bath and then retired to the library to read. anne drew herself a bath shortly thereafter.17 at one point, realizing that she was out of tooth powder, anne actually walked into the baby’s bathroom. she then returned to her room, summoned elsie Whateley, and asked her to prepare some hot lemon (lemonade). around 10 p.m., just after elsie went downstairs to prepare anne’s drink, Betty Gow decided to check on the child one final time. she entered the room with the lights out. noticing that the air was chilly, Betty closed the French window and plugged in a small heater.18 she walked over to the crib, which was behind her and to her right. she could not yet see into the crib because her eyes were still adjusting to the darkness. however, she was disturbed because she could not hear the child breathing. she reached into the crib and felt the covers. The child was not there. Betty hurried through the connecting door to mrs. lindbergh’s room. she was not yet in a panic as she thought that mrs. lindbergh might have taken the baby. “do you have the baby, mrs. lindbergh?” “no, i don’t have him,” replied mrs. lindbergh with a hint of surprise in her voice. anne then suggested that Betty check with Colonel lindbergh. While Betty quickly went down the stairs to see the Colonel, mrs. lindbergh went to the nursery to look for herself. downstairs in the library, Charles lindbergh was reading. Betty anxiously asked, “Colonel lindbergh, have you got the baby? please don’t fool me.”19

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 6 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

a picture of the crib from which the lindbergh baby was taken.

The Colonel stared at her for a moment and then replied, “no, isn’t he in his crib?” When Betty told lindbergh that the baby was not in his crib, he realized that something was terribly wrong. he ran up the stairs, entered the nursery, and inspected the crib. The child’s blanket was still secured to the mattress by the safety pins, and the impression of the child’s head was still on the pillow. it was obvious that the baby could not have gotten out of the crib by himself. at that moment, Charles lindbergh realized his child had been kidnapped. lindbergh left the nursery and went to the adjoining bedroom. From inside the closet, he grabbed his springfield rifle and loaded it. he returned to the nursery with his wife following behind. surveying the room, lindbergh noticed a small white envelope on the radiator enclosure just below the windowsill.20 There was no writing on the envelope. it took only a moment for the Colonel to realize that the envelope likely contained a ransom note of some kind.21 Charles lindbergh turned to his wife, who was nearly petrified, and said, “anne, they have stolen our baby.” anne replied, in a near whisper, “oh, my God.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 2 |

ransom notes, ladders, and Chisels

Charles lindbergh surveyed the rest of the nursery. in addition to the ominous white envelope on the radiator enclosure just below the windowsill, there were smudges of yellow mud or clay on the chest directly beneath the window and on the floor. While these were likely footprints, they were too blurred to mark the clear outline of a foot. lindbergh also noticed that the southeast window was closed, but the shutters were slightly open. showing a presence of mind and composure that was truly remarkable, Colonel lindbergh ordered the entire household not to touch the envelope or anything else in the nursery. many have criticized this action and blatantly stated that no one would ever be able to restrain himself or herself as lindbergh did. however, lindbergh was known to face adversity without panicking. he flew across the atlantic ocean alone in a plane that most would not ever consider boarding, let alone flying. he worked as a barnstormer and had numerous incidents where he bailed out of his plane and parachuted to safety while the plane crashed and burned. if anyone would have been able to remain calm and rational in a crisis, it was Charles lindbergh. meanwhile, anne lindbergh rushed from the nursery back to her bedroom. she threw open a window and leaned out. she thought for a moment that she heard a cry coming from the nearby woods. elsie, who had followed anne into the bedroom, assured her that it was just a cat. olly Whateley was downstairs when Betty Gow came running toward him. she was obviously upset, and olly knew instantly that something was very wrong. Betty told him that the baby was missing and that the Colonel needed his assistance. olly hurried to the nursery, where lindbergh ordered him to call the sheriff in hopewell. Whateley did as he was instructed. hopewell officer Charles Williamson answered the phone and heard olly Whateley say, “Colonel lindbergh’s son has been stolen. Will you please come at once?” Charles lindbergh then contacted his attorney and friend Colonel Breckinridge in new york and the new Jersey state police.

| 7 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 8 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

around 10:25 p.m., lieutenant dunn answered the phone and heard the caller say, “This is Charles lindbergh. my son has just been kidnapped.” dunn asked when the child was taken, and lindbergh replied, “sometime between seven-thirty and ten o’clock. he is twenty months old and is wearing a one piece sleeping suit.”1 lindbergh then hung up the phone. lieutenants dunn and Bornmann conferred. dunn thought it might have been a prank, but Bornmann expressed concern that it might be genuine and suggested calling the lindberghs to confirm if it was Charles lindbergh who called. dunn telephoned the lindbergh estate and the same voice from the prior call answered the phone, saying, “hello, this is Charles lindbergh.” having confirmed the veracity of the call, dunn identified himself and said that men were on their way.2 While lindbergh was still on the telephone, anne and Betty Gow began to search the entire house with the exception of the nursery.3 The women frantically opened closets and drawers in the hope that the baby might have wandered off somehow. neither woman really expected to find him. searching the house was simply better than doing nothing. after completing his phone calls, lindbergh again ordered that nothing in the nursery be touched. he grabbed his rifle and, accompanied by olly Whately, went outside to search the grounds. underneath the window, they found impressions in the mud and, about seventy feet away from the house, found the item that made those impressions: a two-piece wooden ladder. The men also found the third piece of the ladder about ten feet farther away. Finding nothing else, they returned to the house to wait for the police. The actions taken by Charles lindbergh and olly Whateley outside the house have been reported quite differently in the books published on this case. some accounts state that olly Whateley followed lindbergh outside and used the car lights to help him search the grounds and found nothing. While they were outside, the first of the police arrived.4 other accounts assert that lindbergh went out alone and walked a few hundred feet along the road, found nothing, and returned to the house. The police arrived while lindbergh was inside.5 most likely lindbergh and Whateley searched the grounds, found the ladder and initial footprints, then returned to the house and met the police. lindbergh himself acknowledges going outside with his rifle to look around, and Whateley, in his march 3, 1932, statement to the police, stated that he assisted lindbergh. additionally, the statements and testimonies of Charles Williamson and harry Wolfe (the first police officers on the scene) indicate that lindbergh met them at the doorway while still carrying his rifle. moreover, since lindbergh knew that the kidnapper probably used a window for entry due to the location of the ransom note, it seems logical that his search would take him to the grounds outside the nursery. once by the window, it would

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels

/355348t

| 9 |

The southeast window from inside the nursery.

have been nearly impossible for lindbergh not to have seen the ladder. it seems almost absurd to think that lindbergh would have gone outside and not looked underneath the window where the envelope had been left.6 at approximately 10:30 p.m., hopewell police officers harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson arrived. lindbergh brought the men into the living room, where the officers briefly questioned him and the household staff. afterwards the officers asked to see the nursery, and Charles escorted them there. officer Williamson noted that all the windows were closed and also saw the white envelope still resting just below the windowsill.7 The Colonel directed the men not to touch the letter or the contents of the nursery.8 lindbergh and the two officers made their way downstairs and outside to examine the area around the southeast window of the nursery. on the ground beneath the window were two impressions in the mud, apparently made by a ladder. Three or four footprints, which appeared to have been made by someone wearing a cloth over his shoes or someone who was wearing only socks, went in a southeast direction, away from the ladder impressions.9 The men then noticed a two-piece wooden extension ladder lying on the ground approximately seventy-five feet from the house. eight to ten feet farther away, they discovered a third piece of the ladder and a wooden dowel pin that was obviously used to connect the pieces. a wood chisel was also found.10 They did not see any other footprints at that time.11

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 10 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

after finding these various items, the hopewell police returned to the house to wait for the new Jersey state police to arrive. The ladder, dowel pin, chisel, ladder impressions, and footprints were left behind unsecured. The actions taken by officers Williamson and Wolfe were inexcusable. The evidence should never have been left unattended. These actions, as well as later mistakes made by the new Jersey state police, would severely compromise the footprint evidence and serve as the foundation for many of the wild accusations that permeate the literature on this case. Cpl. Joseph a. Wolf (no relation to the hopewell officer) was the first member of the new Jersey state police to arrive on the crime scene.12 like the two officers before him, Wolf interviewed Colonel lindbergh about the kidnapping. Wolf asked him whether he had any idea who might have committed this crime or if he had heard anything that night to indicate when the crime might have occurred. lindbergh answered no to both questions. This denial has been questioned by those who level accusations against lindbergh. he may not have yet put two and two together. it also appears that lindbergh did not even know the ladder was broken at this point. later that evening, after learning of the broken side rails, lindbergh realized that the cracking sound he had heard while in the living room might well have been the breaking of the ladder. Corporal Wolf instructed lindbergh and the two hopewell officers to leave the crime scene untouched until the fingerprint technicians arrived. Wolf called in a preliminary report to headquarters. he also requested that Col. h. norman schwartzkopf,13 the head of the state police, be notified. Wolf then asked to be shown the nursery. lindbergh, Wolf, and the hopewell officers went to the nursery, where Wolf noticed the closed southeast window with open shutters and a white envelope on the radiator enclosure. The child’s blanket was still pinned to the mattress, and there were three or four blobs of mud where the kidnapper had walked in the room. Careful not to disturb the evidence, the men left the nursery and went back outside to show Corporal Wolf what they had discovered beneath the southeast window. Wolf observed fresh footprints leading to three sections of a ladder, but did not report seeing any footprints leading away from the ladder toward the southeast as was later discovered. This is the second time the area around the ladder was examined without anyone noticing these additional footprints. after he was shown the location where the ladder and chisel had been found, Corporal Wolf asked the men to return to the house so he could ask more questions of the household staff. For the second time, the evidence was left unprotected. Corporal Wolf ’s failure to maintain the integrity of the crime scene at this point is just poor police work. The hopewell officers had already left the evidence unattended for nearly thirty minutes. The corporal’s inaction left the evidence unprotected for another thirty or forty minutes.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels

/355348t

| 11 |

h. norman schwartzkopf, the superintendent of the new Jersey state police.

shortly after the men returned to the living room, troopers deGaetano and Bornmann arrived. They were briefed on the case by lindbergh and Corporal Wolf. like all the officers before them, they wanted to see the nursery and were led upstairs by Colonel lindbergh. While they were examining the nursery, trooper deGaetano went outside to examine the ground beneath the southeast window. he saw the ladder impression with footprints, which he subsequently described as being made by a “stocking foot,”14 leading to the pieces of the ladder. he also saw the footprints left by anne lindbergh earlier in the afternoon when she walked by the nursery to wave to her son.15 deGaetano did not see any other footprints at this time. This was the fourth time the area around the ladder was examined without anyone noticing the additional footprints that led in a southeast direction. The trooper returned to the house and found trooper Bornmann questioning elsie Whateley and Betty Gow in the living room. Both troopers then went back upstairs to the nursery. By this time, more police had arrived. trooper Kelly, Corporal leon, and major schoeffel all arrived near midnight. Kelly was assigned the task of taking fingerprints even though he was not particularly experienced. nevertheless, he was escorted to the nursery and found it left just as the other officers had seen it.16 Kelly put on a pair of gloves, carefully picked up the envelope by its edges from the windowsill, and put it on a table in the center of the room. he dusted the outside

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 12 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

of the envelope with black powder, but found only a worthless smudge.17 he used a nail file18 to open the envelope and dusted the inside of the envelope and the letter but did not find any usable prints. The letter was presented unread to major schoeffel. he examined the letter and asked Colonel lindbergh if he wished to see the note while looking directly at Chief Wolfe, who, picking up on the not-too-subtle hint, left the room with officer Williamson.19 once the hopewell officers had left, schoeffel handed the letter to Colonel lindbergh, who examined the strange document. The letter was written in blue ink20 in handwriting that was shaky, childish, and full of errors in spelling and grammar. it read: dear sir! have 50.000 $ redy 25000 $ in 20 $ bills 1.5000 $ in 10 $ bills and 10000 $ in 5 $ bills. after 2–4 days we will inform you were to deliver the mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for notify the polise the child is in gute care. indication for all letters are singnature and 3 holds.21

The “singnature” on the lower right corner of the letter was an odd symbol consisting of two interlocking blue circles about the size of a half dollar coin. in the oval formed by the blue circles was a red circle about the size of a nickel. Three holes were punched in the symbol with one in the middle of the red circle and the other two just outside the outer circles equidistant from the center hole. lastly, there were wavy vertical lines inside the outer circles but outside the inner red circle. While the ransom letter had no usable fingerprints, it did provide significant clues. The spelling and grammar suggested that the author was european, most likely German, because it was written using the grammatical construction of the German language but with english words. The use of the dollar sign after the monetary amounts also pointed to a German writer. interestingly, the writer misspelled simple words such as “redy” and “anyding,” yet had spelled “indication” and “notify” correctly. The officers believed that the author probably used a German-english dictionary to spell the more difficult words, but felt more comfortable with less complicated words. after lindbergh read the letter, it was returned to trooper Kelly, who kept it until he turned it over to state police Captain lamb later that evening. Kelly then dusted

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels

| 13 |

This is the ransom note left by the kidnapper in the nursery of the lindbergh estate.

the rest of the nursery for fingerprints, including the crib, windowsill (inside and out), the baby’s crib screen, a lamp, and the French window. he found no usable prints. Frank Kelly’s failure to find any fingerprints in the nursery has been a source of great controversy for many years. many say that the kidnapper wiped all of these surfaces clean. others say that Kelly did not find any usable prints because they were smudged and worthless. unfortunately, the record has never been clarified in this regard. Kelly’s statements at the trial offer an answer. he was questioned by the lead defense counsel, who was confirming that no fingerprints were found anywhere in the nursery. Kelly interrupted the attorney and said simply that nothing “of value” was found.22 later, when Kelly was recalled to testify, he stated that he found “marks” on the nursery window, but no “fingerprints of value.”23

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 14 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This testimony concludes the controversy and establishes that Kelly did find some fingerprints in the nursery that night. unfortunately, they were either smudged or not usable. They were not “of value” to the investigation. Furthermore, later in the investigation, a fingerprint expert, using more advanced scientific techniques, would uncover hundreds of fingerprints on various items that Kelly did not find when he dusted. This questions the reliability of the techniques used by Kelly and his general skill in dusting for fingerprints. trooper Kelly also photographed the nursery and the splotches of mud on the nursery floor. he took samples of this mud.24 While trooper Kelly was processing the nursery for evidence, Colonel lindbergh, Corporal leon, lieutenant Keaten, and troopers deGaetano and Bornmann went downstairs to take another look at the ladder, chisel, and footprints. trooper Bornmann noticed that many reporters had arrived on the scene and were near the ladder.25 The ladder had not yet been photographed or processed for fingerprints. While the police did not want to disturb the evidence, there was little choice. There were several hundred reporters who were “absolutely out of control.”26 trooper Bornmann was ordered to bring the ladder into the house, which was the only area the reporters had not yet entered. in the process of moving it, any potential fingerprints on the ladder could have been seriously damaged, assuming, of course, that members of the press had not already done so. When trooper Bornmann lifted the ladder, they found that the ladder was broken. two of the side rails, later identified as rails 14 and 15, were split at the base near where the dowel pin had held the ladder together.27 The officers speculated that the ladder was able to hold the kidnapper’s weight on the way up, but could not hold the extra weight of the child on the way down. Where the ladder had been broken would have been approximately five feet from the ground when placed against the wall of the house. There was also mud on several of the rungs, presumably left by the kidnapper. after making these observations, Bornmann took the ladder into the house away from the reporters. The ladder, a three-piece extension ladder measuring eighteen-and-a-half feet when fully assembled, was constructed for easy transport. The first two pieces folded together on hinges and the third piece was separate, but could be connected using a wooden dowel pin. The ladder was also tapered with each section slightly narrower than the former, so it could collapse to a size that was small enough to fit in the back of a car. it was made of lightweight wood and weighed only about thirty-eight pounds. The rungs were spaced rather far apart. it seemed obvious that whoever built it knew exactly how far apart the rungs could be positioned to still allow the user to climb. The ladder appeared to have been specially designed for the person who intended to climb it. By constructing it with a minimum number of rungs, the weight of the ladder could be reduced. The builder knew the minimum number of rungs he would need.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels

/355348t

| 15 |

This ladder has frequently been described as crude, rickety, and poorly constructed. The reality is that the ladder was ingeniously designed and was made by an experienced carpenter. For use in construction work, the ladder would have been useless. however, for a one-time use in a kidnapping or other crime, it was very useful, but only for the person for whom it was designed. its light weight and ability to collapse into a smaller size was very convenient. The kidnapper likely had underestimated the baby’s weight and did not make the ladder strong enough. after trooper Bornmann left, the remaining men examined the area where the ladder had been. it was then that trooper deGaetano discovered additional footprints leading away from the area in a southeast direction. lindbergh, Keaten, leon, and deGaetano followed the prints across the property, past an old chicken coop and an abandoned house. a search of both structures revealed nothing. The footprints continued until they eventually disappeared on a road with tire tracks leading away. There was no further trace.28 no photographs or plaster impressions were made of the tire tracks or of the footprints. even worse, the tire tracks were never measured.29 although it has been accepted over the years that these footprints and tire tracks belonged to the kidnapper and indicated how he left the area, such assumptions are wrong. a careful examination reveals that these prints were very different from those found by the window. The prints under the southeast window that led to the kidnapper’s ladder were referred to as “sockprints.” The kidnapper used socks or some kind of cloth to cover his feet and disguise his prints. The prints discovered leading from the ladder to the tire tracks were described as “rubber boot or overshoe impressions.”30 if both sets of footprints were made by the kidnapper, he would have had to remove the cloth covering and either discarded it or carried it with him, which makes no sense. additionally, trooper deGaetano also reported seeing “prints of a dog near the prints of the boots or overshoes.”31 it is highly unlikely that the kidnapper brought a dog with him to help steal the baby, so these prints could not be his. The nature of these footprints (compared to the set leading to the ladder) and the accompanying paw prints of the dog make this quite clear. There is an additional observation that must be made. The area where the ladder was found had been examined at least five times before the new prints were discovered. lindbergh, Chief Wolfe, officer Williamson, Corporal Wolf, trooper Bornmann, and trooper deGaetano all examined the ladder, and none of them reported seeing the “rubber boot or overshoe prints.” it was only after midnight, approximately one-and-a-half hours after the ladder was first discovered, that these new prints were noticed for the first time. it seems unlikely that lindbergh and all of the officers could have missed these footprints so many times. lastly, there is one additional factor that must be taken into account. during the five searches of the area around the ladder, there was no indication that any members of the press were around. however, the new prints were found after the reporters

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 16 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

arrived. it would seem that the press began to arrive in droves while everyone was in the nursery watching trooper Kelly dust for prints. These “rubber boot or overshoe” prints were made either by a reporter or by one of the new Jersey state troopers. The presence of the dog paw prints points toward a trooper, though they could just be coincidental. more likely than not, the prints were made by a reporter searching the grounds for leads for his newspaper. regardless of who made these new prints, they did not belong to the kidnapper. unfortunately, the officers did not reach this conclusion and based a significant portion of the early investigation on the idea that the kidnapper had fled to the southeast. later evidence would show the kidnapper had fled in a different direction.32 While lindbergh, Keaten, leon, and deGaetano were following the wrong footprints, trooper Kelly was examining the ladder. he dusted the ladder rails and rungs, as well as the dowel pin, and found nothing. he also took soil samples from the ladder’s rungs and noted that they matched the soil samples taken from the nursery.33 The chisel was also brought inside and Kelly examined it. it was a Buck’s Brothers ¾-inch chisel and a rather old one at that. no fingerprints were found on the chisel. trooper Kelly was now of the opinion that the kidnapper had worn gloves during the crime.34 trooper Kelly concluded his work that evening by taking pictures of a footprint near the southeast window, the outside of the nursery window, and the ransom note itself. he also took samples of the mud outside the southeast window. all three mud samples matched.35 Colonel lindbergh and lieutenant Keaten left the estate a short time later to interview some of the neighbors. The officers remaining at the estate had their hands full trying to control the swarm of media on the property. Their job would become even more difficult the following morning as hundreds of people would converge on the estate grounds once the news of the kidnapping was made public late that night. any further evidence that might have been on the grounds was destroyed. The footprints, which had been found but not preserved, were destroyed as well. The media and public frenzy over this case had begun.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 3 |

The Kidnapper makes second Contact

By the time the sun rose, news of the kidnapping had reached all four corners of the world, displacing other major news stories of the day. as well, the New York Times received more than three thousand phone calls seeking more information. reporters were doing their best to get as much information as possible. The sourland estate was swarming with reporters, and the state troopers could barely control them. The best the police could do was to prevent the press from entering lindbergh’s house, since keeping them off the grounds was a near impossibility. eventually, the reporters set up base at the hopewell railroad station, where news was radioed to the world. The new Jersey state police were busy setting up their central headquarters in lindbergh’s garage. They promptly installed a switchboard with twenty separate lines. The hopewell phone exchange had to be modified to handle the tremendous increase in usage. additionally, police from several counties were called in to help guard the lindbergh estate. to accommodate them, the lindberghs converted the ground floor of the house into a police hotel. Bedding was brought down for the men, and the Colonel’s study became a conference room. lindbergh was doing his best to avoid the media. While he had been a source of public attention after his flight across the atlantic, the level of interest had not been this intense. The first wave of reporters pressed him for a comment. Just before dawn, he briefly addressed them, saying, “i hope you boys will excuse me, but i would rather the state police answered all questions. i am sure you understand how i feel.”1 despite his request, the media would not leave him alone until he eventually left the country in frustration some time later. The politicians of the day were getting organized as well. president hoover announced that the FBi, the Cia, and all federal agencies would offer their full cooperation. new Jersey Gov. a. harry moore sent telegrams to every governor in the country, as well as to the president, seeking cooperation in the investigation. Congress immediately began debating making kidnapping a federal crime. ultimately, they would pass the lindbergh law, which did exactly that. numerous letters arrived | 17 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 18 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

from heads of state around the world. moreover, every police agency in the country received a description of the child and was constantly searching. Couples with blondhaired children were stopped continually and questioned. it was clear that the entire world was now focused on the tiny town of hopewell. While all this was going on, lt. John sweeney was experimenting with the kidnapper’s ladder. he placed it in the two impressions under the southeast window and found that they fit perfectly. When fully assembled, the ladder stretched well above the window. But if only the first two sections were used, the ladder was just two-and-a-half feet below the window. additionally, sweeney noticed that the whitewash on the wall was scuffed where the top of the ladder had rested against it. Further examination of the scuffing revealed splinters of wood consistent with the ladder’s wood. This demonstrated that the kidnapper had likely used just the first two sections of the ladder during the kidnapping. it also seemed to indicate that the kidnapper was either long-legged or rather athletic. it has been suggested that the kidnapper built the third piece of the ladder because he intended to snatch the child from the englewood estate.2 The basis of this theory is that if all three pieces of the ladder were used, it would reach the englewood nursery. This is pure speculation at best. Without solid or compelling proof, the fact that the ladder, with all three sections in place, would have been sufficient for the job at the englewood estate must be considered coincidental. to assist in the investigation, police carpenters built a second ladder nearly identical to the first. since the kidnapper’s ladder was broken, very few experiments could be performed with it. using this replica ladder, lieutenant sweeney climbed up and into the nursery window. some had thought that the kidnapper’s ladder was too rickety to be used. sweeney proved that a 170-pound man could climb it with little difficulty. When they had completed their initial examination of the original ladder, members of the state police took it to various carpenters and hardware stores in the immediate vicinity. nobody could identify it or provide any information as to its source. examiners did notice that the nails had been driven cleanly, and that the sections fit perfectly within one another. Based on these observations, they became convinced that the builder of the ladder had considerable carpentry skill.3 The incoming mail to the sourland estate was closely monitored, though this was no easy job. By mid-afternoon, three very large sacks of mail had arrived and needed to be examined. numerous troopers and officers spent eight-hour shifts just sorting the lindberghs’ mail in an upstairs room of the house. one of the officers found a small postcard addressed to “Chas. linbergh, princeton, n.J.” The handwritten message read: “Baby safe, instructions later, act accordingly.”4 This card did not have the handwriting style or the “singnature” from the original ransom note. nevertheless, the police started an extensive manhunt for the author of this note. a postman interviewed by the police remarked that he had seen the card while emptying a box in the newark area. after searching nearly two

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 19 |

The police replica ladder against the house on the lindbergh estate.

thousand homes, the author was located. he was a mentally disturbed young boy who just wanted to see if he could get into the papers. This wild-goose chase was the first, but not the last, during the two-and-a-half-year investigation. The mail alone brought thousands of cranks, suggestions, and good wishes from people throughout the country every single day. The cranks, whether by mail or otherwise, caused great delay and hardship for the investigation. one man arrived at the estate claiming to have information about the kidnapping, but would provide it directly only to mrs. lindbergh. he was brought before the child’s mother and then began reciting shakespeare. antonia Cholowski, who worked slaughtering pigs, claimed to have heard people talking in the back country about the kidnapping. ms. Cholowski, nicknamed “pig lady,” brought the police to numerous shacks and buildings. in one of the nearby shacks, an old diaper was discovered. it was examined and found to be unrelated.5 The police also investigated suspicious cars seen in the area of the lindbergh home. There were reports of three people in a green sedan taking pictures of the lindbergh

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 20 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The ladder against the wall and a corresponding photo showing the location of the window in the context of the entire house.

home (not necessarily an unusual occurrence), a blue car seen near Featherbed lane, and a black car that was later traced to Brooklyn and found to be unrelated. The most credible of these early reports came from a young student named sebastian Benjamin lupica, who lived about a half mile away from the sourland estate. on the afternoon of the kidnapping, he had gone to his mailbox, which was just across from the entrance to the lindberghs’ home. While there, he saw a dodge drive by with two pieces of a ladder in the back seat. he got a look at the driver and described him as having a “thin face” and wearing a “black overcoat and fedora hat.”6 he was unsure whether he would be able to recognize the man if he saw him again. during this time, lieutenant Keaten and Captain lamb were putting the available evidence together in an attempt to formulate a possible suspect or at least a type of suspect. The men posed the initial question of whether the crime had been an inside job. The lindberghs were not normally at the sourland home on tuesdays. usually the couple spent weekends there and stayed at englewood during the week, so how did the kidnapper know to go to hopewell instead of englewood? The police thought that one of the lindberghs’ servants might have inadvertently provided the information to the kidnapper. Betty Gow and the Whateleys both knew that the child was at sourland that night and were thoroughly questioned.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 21 |

Clockwise from above: Betty Gow; elsie Whateley, the lindberghs’ housekeeper and cook; and olly Whateley, the lindberghs’ butler.

There was also the question of why nothing other than the “cracking sound” had been heard. The police felt that the child would have cried out if handled by someone other than the servants or the family. The family dog had also not responded at any time during the evening. however, the dog, asleep at the far end of the house, may not have detected the sounds of an intruder because of the howling wind that night. There were other factors that seemed to indicate inside assistance. The crime had been perfectly timed. The entire household was eating dinner on the first floor when the kidnapper struck. it was also not considered a coincidence that the kidnapper chose to enter the window with shutters that could not be secured. it also appeared the kidnapper knew which room was the nursery. lieutenant Keaten theorized that one of the servants could have handed the baby out the window to a waiting associate. since Betty Gow was the last person to see the child, she became the most likely suspect. This suspicion was heightened when the police learned of the phone call from Betty’s boyfriend, red Johnson, on

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 22 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

the night of the crime. Though lindbergh had complete faith in Betty, lieutenant Keaten questioned her thoroughly on march 3, 1932. she openly admitted calling her boyfriend shortly before leaving englewood and receiving his call that night, but vehemently denied any wrongdoing. several days later, red Johnson was arrested in Connecticut and questioned by the local police. Johnson was composed and provided direct answers to all the questions. his story was consistent with Betty Gow’s version, and he denied any involvement in the kidnapping. The police searched Johnson’s car and possessions during the interrogation. The fact that Johnson owned a green coupe was of particular concern because a similar vehicle had been reportedly seen on the night of the kidnapping. When the police found an empty milk bottle in Johnson’s car, they felt sure they had their man. When confronted, Johnson openly admitted that the bottle was his. he stated that he drank large quantities of milk and joked that he was on a “milk diet.”7 The police did not believe this story and continued to question him and investigate. Though Johnson eventually lost his composure under the pressure, he never varied or changed his story. The police searched the yacht Johnson had worked on and questioned many of his associates. everything Betty and red had told the police checked out. eventually, red was cleared of suspicion, but not released. his fingerprints had been sent to the FBi for examination, where it was learned that he was an illegal immigrant from norway. after being taken to new Jersey, red was questioned by Colonel schwartzkopf and the state police. Though he pleaded desperately to be allowed to remain in the united states, he was deported shortly thereafter and never returned. The state police investigated all the other servants in both the sourland and englewood estates. Though this effort produced no results, it was necessary as the investigators intended to leave no stone unturned. other members of the police did not accept the inside job theory. They pointed out that the newly constructed house had no curtains. as the house was located on a hill with dense forest nearby, anyone could have observed the actions of the household with a pair of binoculars and remain undetected. it would have taken a very short time to learn the floor plan and location of the nursery. From the right location, the kidnapper could have observed that the household was having dinner and thus been able to choose that time to attack. The police also felt that the house was well known to the public after having been featured in numerous articles and newspapers.8 The lindberghs’ usual pattern of staying at the sourland estate only on the weekends was well known to hopewell residents, but was not necessarily something an outsider would know. There had been a great deal of publicity concerning the lindberghs’ new estate near hopewell, and an outsider could easily have assumed that they were living there full-time. The fact that the kidnapper chose a day when the lindberghs were not normally there could have been just plain dumb luck. There was also still a dispute among the investigators as to how the crime had occurred and how many people were involved. still relying on the second set of prints

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 23 |

found by trooper deGaetano, they believed the kidnapper had fled to the southeast. some of the investigators also believed that there was more than one kidnapper involved, even though there was no real proof of this. While there were numerous theories bandied about, the police actually knew very little about the case. The day after the kidnapping, the newspapers carried the lindberghs’ first public appeal to the kidnapper. The initial comment came from the baby’s mother. anne was concerned for the child’s health as he was just recovering from a cold at the time of his abduction. she made public the baby’s diet, asking that the kidnapper adhere to it so as not to endanger the child’s health. The diet consisted of: a half cup of orange juice upon waking. one quart of milk during the day. Three tablespoons of cooked cereal morning and night. two tablespoons of cooked vegetables once a day. The yolk of one egg daily. one baked potato or rice once a day. two tablespoons of stewed fruit daily. a half cup of prune juice after the afternoon nap. Fourteen drops of viosterol.

Charles lindbergh prepared a second message with the approval of his attorney, Colonel Breckinridge, negotiating the return of his son. mrs. lindbergh and i desire to make a personal contact with the kidnapers of our child. our only interest is in his immediate and safe return and we feel certain that the kidnapers will realize that this interest is strong enough to justify them in having complete confidence and trust in any promises that we may make in connection with his return. We urge those who have the child to select any representatives of ours who may be suitable to them at any time and at any place that they may designate. if this is accepted, we promise that we will keep whatever arrangements that may be made by their representative and ours strictly confidential and we further pledge ourselves that we will not try to injure in any way those connected with the return of the child. Charles a. lindbergh anne lindbergh

Both of these appeals were broadcast on radio stations throughout the country and plastered on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. While they waited for a communication from the kidnapper, lindbergh and the state police began devising a strategy for establishing an intermediary. By now,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 24 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

rumors were circulating that organized crime might have had a hand in the kidnapping. even al Capone, incarcerated for tax evasion, offered to use his underworld contacts to help solve the case. he even offered a $10,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of the kidnapper. in return for his assistance, he wanted to be released from prison. Capone’s proposed deal made for great headlines and sensationalism, but was never seriously considered by lindbergh or the police. Capone remained incarcerated for the rest of his life. lindbergh did not discount the possibility that his son may have been taken by members of organized crime. against the advice and request of the police, lindbergh let it be known that he was looking for an intermediary with ties to the mob. The police were irate that lindbergh would allow criminals to be associated with the investigation, but lindbergh was now fully in charge and not even the police dared to oppose him. The Colonel had made it clear that he did not want any police interference in his negotiations with the kidnappers. The goal was not the arrest of a suspect but the safe return of his son. he would allow nothing to compromise this. lindbergh’s stubborn refusal to let the police handle the early stages of the investigation was a mistake. The police ignored several opportunities to capture the kidnapper rather than upset Colonel lindbergh. had these opportunities been taken, there would be no remaining questions about this case. however, lindbergh’s motives are understandable. he just wanted his son back and was not concerned about apprehending the kidnapper. From the perspective of law enforcement, lindbergh’s position had a negative impact on the investigation. on the day after the kidnapping, Colonel Breckinridge received a phone call from morris “mickey” rosner, who claimed he could help lindbergh make contact with the kidnapper. rosner was a small-time con man and bootlegger. he had also served as a police informant and had an indictment pending against him because he had bilked numerous people of nearly $2 million in a stock-selling fiasco. although the police had serious misgivings, rosner was invited to meet with lindbergh, Breckinridge, and Colonel schwartzkopf at the sourland estate. The police had already run background checks and expressed great concern about involving rosner. lindbergh and Breckinridge both made it clear that they felt rosner would be able to make contact with the criminal underworld. on the morning of march 3, rosner sat down with lindbergh, Breckinridge, schwartzkopf, and lieutenant Keaten in lindbergh’s library. rosner told the men that he was sure that the mob was involved in the kidnapping. he made reference to associates of al Capone as well as the purple Gang of detroit, and wanted to make contact with them using two “associates,” salvatore spitale and irving Bitz, both of questionable reputation. salvatore spitale started his career as a dance hall bouncer, but had since moved on to bigger and better things as the owner of a few speakeasies. irving Bitz was a muscle man for Jacob “little augie” orgen, a noted gangster, and had served federal time on a narcotics conviction.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 25 |

like al Capone, mr. rosner’s services would not come without a price. he wanted money upfront to cover his expenses. Breckinridge gave him $2,500, which was a significant amount of money even by today’s standards. By the standards of 1932, during the Great depression, it was a tremendous amount of money. it was rosner’s second request that caused the most controversy. he wanted to see the ransom note and have a copy made of it. schwartzkopf and Keaten were incredulous. it was bad enough that rosner was even allowed to be part of the investigative team. it was even worse that he wanted to bring two more criminals into the fold. But to give him the ransom note and the secret symbol that was the key to distinguishing the kidnapper’s letters from those of hoaxers was unthinkable. if any of the hoaxers ever learned of this symbol, the damage to the case would be staggering. once again, lindbergh ignored the wishes of the police and allowed rosner to read the note. a tracing of the note was made as well. There have been claims that rosner showed the note to numerous criminals and that copies of the ransom note were found throughout the country. There is no question that rosner was shown the original note and given a free-hand tracing. it is also clear that he showed the tracing to spitale. There is no evidence, however, that the ransom note or the symbol was circulated to members of the underworld. in fact, when mr. spitale testified before the grand jury, he specifically stated that he never saw “notes or copies of any notes received by Colonel lindbergh, or by agents of Colonel lindbergh, or received by dr. Condon or by anyone else.”9 additionally, other than seeing the symbol once when rosner showed it to him, spitale testified that he never saw the symbol again prior to the hauptmann trial.10 While there were numerous people who attempted to defraud lindbergh, none ever used the kidnapper’s “singnature” or anything even close. The only item indicating that others might have seen the ransom note was a news article from newark, new Jersey, dated may 13, 1932. This article reveals most of the contents of the note and does describe the ransom symbol. someone with the paper may have had an inside contact with the police. however, this article came out over a month after the last ransom note was sent and a day after the baby’s body was found. The extent of rosner’s involvement was rather limited. his associates, spitale and Bitz, opened a headquarters at a speakeasy on Forty-first street in manhattan. Thereafter, the newspapers made claims that the three men were seen in numerous places along the east Coast as well as in Chicago and detroit. The mere mention of Chicago and detroit suggested to some that al Capone or the purple Gang was somehow involved in the crime. no such connection existed. at one point, rosner granted an interview and boasted that he had learned that the baby was still alive and would eventually be returned.11 he even claimed to have proof to back up his claims. none was ever produced. moreover, rosner’s associates openly admitted that they had no information or evidence to offer. The day after meeting with mr. rosner, a second letter from the kidnapper arrived

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 26 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

at the sourland estate. even though thousands of letters were delivered to the lindberghs after the kidnapping, this one was different. it bore the same peculiar symbol and crude handwriting as the original note. additionally, the letter had comparable misspelled words and sentence structure. The letter, mailed from Brooklyn the prior evening, stated on one side: dear sir. We have warned you note to make anyding public also notify the police now you have to take the consequence. That means we will holt the baby untill everyding is quiet. We can note make any appointment just now. We know very well what it means to us. it is rely necessary to make a world affair out off this, or to get your baby back as sun as possible to settle those affair in a quick way will better for both seit. don’t by afraid about the baby two lady keeping care of its day and night. We also will feed him according to the diet.

on the bottom right of the front page was the red and blue symbol with the three holes. an additional line of script read, “singture on all letters” and there was an arrow pointing to the symbol. on the back side, the letter continued: We are interested to send him back in gut health. ouer ransom was made aus for 50 000 $ but now we have to take another person to it and probable have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected so the amount will be 70,000 $ 20.000 in 50$ bills 25.000 $ in 20$ bills 15000 $ in 10$ bills and 10.000 in 5$ bills. don’t mark any bills or take them from one serial nommer. We will inform you latter were to deliver hte mony. but we will note do so until the police is out of the case and the pappers are quiet.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 27 |

Beneath this writing, toward the lower left, could be seen the three holes from the “singnature” on the other side. almost immediately to the right of the holes, the letter continued: The Kidnaping we preparet in years. so we are preparet for everyding12

Both lindbergh and the police were convinced that this letter was genuine. it not only bore the distinctive signature but also contained similar errors in spelling and grammar. “everything” and “anything” were again spelled “everyding” and “anyding” and money and good were spelled “mony” and “gut.” The handwriting in both letters, even to the naked eye, was obviously similar. The letter also revealed that the kidnapper was following the case in the media. he referred to the diet from mrs. lindbergh and the “pappers” (newspapers). now the police knew that the kidnapper could be contacted indirectly by making careful announcements to the press. of greater importance to the lindberghs, the kidnapper reported that the baby was in good health. This bolstered their hope that continued negotiations and compliance with the demands would result in the return of their child. so great was their optimism that they barely gave a second thought that the ransom had been increased by $20,000. The police did not have to wait long for the next letter from the kidnapper. on march 5, a letter arrived at the law office of henry Breckinridge in manhattan. The letter also had a brief cover note directing delivery to Charles lindbergh. one of the firm’s staff, James phelan, brought the note to the estate. This letter, like all the others, was written in blue ink and had the now familiar symbol in the lower right corner. The letter was lengthy and written on both sides of the paper. dear sir. dit you reccive ouer letter from march 4. We sent the mail in one off the letter you near Burr hall—Brooklyn. We know police interfere with your privatmail, how can we come to any arrangements this way. in the future we will send ouer letters to mr. Breckenbridge at 25 Broadway. We belive polise captured the letter and dit note Forwardet to you. We will note accept any go-between from your seid. We will

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 28 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This page (front) and facing page (back): This is the second ransom note that lindbergh received on march 4, 1932. it was mailed from Brooklyn.

arrangh theas latter. Thers is no worry about the Boy. he is very well and will be feed according to the diet. Best dank fur information about it. We are interested to send your Boy back in goot health

The letter continued on the other side of the sheet: is it nessisery to make a words affair out off it, or to get your Boy back as son as possible:

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 29 |

Wy dit you ingnore ouer letter which we left in the room. The baby woudt be back long ago. you woudt note get any result from police, becauce our Kidnaping was planet for a year allredy. But we was afraid the boy would not be strong enough. ouer ransom was made out for 50.000 $ but now we have to put another lady to it and propperly have to hold the baby longer as we exspected so it will be 70.000 $. 20000 in 50 $ bills 25000 in 25 $ bills 15000 in 10$ bills 10000 in 5 $ bill. We warn you agin

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 30 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This is the cover letter for the ransom note sent to Colonel Breckinridge. it does not have the “singnature.”

not to mark any bills or take them from one serial no. We will inform you latter how to deliver the mony, but not befor the police is out of the cace and the pappers are quiet. please grab a short notice about this letter in the new-york american.13

The bottom portion of the writing was to the right of the three holes in the “singnature” on the other side. obviously, the symbol used by the kidnapper was put on

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 31 |

This page (front) and overleaf (back): This note for lindbergh was sent to Colonel Breckinridge. since it was for lindbergh’s eyes, it has the “singnature.”

the paper before the message was written. The police theorized that the kidnapper had put the symbol on numerous pieces of paper around the same time because all of the holes in the ransom notes matched perfectly. surprisingly, most accounts of this case do not include the final line of this letter. This line is highly significant for two reasons. First, it discloses that the kidnapper read the New York American. second, the kidnapper had now provided a method to communicate with him. previously, the messages offered no opportunity to reply. despite this development, the investigators were concerned about this letter. The kidnapper was becoming nervous because of the storm of media reports and the statement “We will note accept any go-between from your seid” represented a

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 32 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

possible breakdown in negotiations. What was unclear was whether the kidnapper was declaring an unwillingness to deal with anyone selected by the lindberghs or did not want to negotiate with the lindberghs directly. to answer this question and to provoke additional letters from the kidnapper, Colonel Breckinridge convinced the lindberghs to issue another statement to the kidnapper offering new go-betweens. Thus, on march 6, 1932, the following announcement appeared on the front pages of newspapers nationwide: if the kidnappers of our child are unwilling to deal direct, we fully authorize “salvy” spitale and irving Bitz to act as our go-between. We will also follow any

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact

/355348t

| 33 |

other method suggested by the kidnapers that we can be sure will bring the return of our child. Charles a. lindbergh anne lindbergh

This announcement caused great outcry throughout the country. people were irate that lindbergh was being forced to deal with gangsters. many questioned why lindbergh would allow gangsters to work as go-betweens. how could they be trusted? lindbergh and Breckinridge still felt that underworld involvement was the best hope of getting the baby back alive. numerous crime figures made bogus offers to help. Few were taken very seriously. The only underworld figure who provided lindbergh with sound advice was Frank Costello, the head of the luciano crime family in new york. Costello was contacted by Colonel Breckinridge and asked if he could provide any information. Costello responded a few days later that the baby was not being held by anyone in organized crime. he also offered his opinion that the baby was probably dead and that no ransom should be paid.14 ultimately, the kidnapper never directly responded to this announcement. instead, a neutral go-between was chosen by the kidnapper himself. The person selected for this assignment would become the most controversial character of the entire debacle.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 34 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 4 |

J. F. C.

The single most fascinating person involved in the lindbergh kidnapping was dr. John F. Condon. anyone investigating this case cannot help but be intrigued by this man. neither his involvement nor his ultimate impact on the investigation could have been foreseen. With one odd act, Condon went from being a minor celebrity in his neighborhood to the front pages of newspapers around the world before slipping from the headlines and public attention, all in a matter of four years. his actions in this case have been the source of debate and controversy among lindbergh scholars. By way of comparison, Condon is to the lindbergh case what the magic bullet theory is to the Kennedy assassination. Before joining the investigation, John Condon was a semiretired educator who gave occasional lectures at Fordham university. he was seventy-two years old, but had the physical conditioning of a much younger man, standing just over six feet tall and weighing a firm two hundred pounds. his hair and mustache were thick and gray, and he was almost always attired in a black three-piece suit with matching bowler hat. There is some dispute about his educational background. he was always referred to as “doctor,” but many question this title.1 it is generally agreed, however, that Condon received a bachelor of arts degree in 1882 from the College of the City of new york, a master’s degree from Fordham university in 1902, and a doctorate in pedagogy from new york university in 1904.2 regardless of his actual academic achievements, the title stuck. prior to retiring, Condon taught in various city schools for forty-six years, beginning at public school 89 in harlem and eventually serving as principal at public school 12, claiming that he never missed a class. Condon was very influential in the establishment of the Bronx Borough flag, which predated the new york City flag by three years. in 1912, on Bronx Borough day, Condon presented the new flag to Borough president Cyrus miller on the steps of the Bronx Borough hall on tremont and Third avenues. dr. Condon was extremely patriotic and never afraid to take action when he deemed it necessary. one year, the annual Bronx Borough day parade was to be | 34 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

J. F. C.

| 35 |

John F. Condon

cancelled. Condon stepped in and organized his own parade to properly celebrate the occasion. he was very fond of children and spent many hours coaching sports such as baseball, boxing, and swimming. according to records from the FBi, Condon was awarded the Gold lifesaving medal by the commandant of the Coast Guard for saving a young child from drowning. he was further credited with saving children from drowning on at least five other occasions.3 Condon idolized Charles lindbergh and considered him a national treasure. When he learned of the kidnapping, Condon was extremely upset. several days later, on march 5, 1932, Condon read the news that lindbergh was dealing with gangsters to negotiate the return of his child. Condon was incensed. to him, this was fast becoming a national shame and disgrace. in an act that reflected his high opinion of himself, Condon wrote a letter to the Bronx Home News. The Bronx Home News was a small publication (about 100,000 readers) whose publisher was Condon’s personal friend. over the years, Condon submitted many letters, poems, and articles to the paper. often he used pseudonyms such as “J. u. stice,” “l. o. nestar,” and “p. a. triot” for his work. Condon sat down in his study and, using homemade purple ink, wrote his letter. it read:

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 36 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

2974 decatur ave. Bronx, n.y.C., march 7/32 editor of home news: i have followed your columns since the pioneer days and i now ask you to go even beyond the realm of “journalism,” into speculative philosophy for the benefit of Colonel Charles a. lindberg’s child. i have written stories the contents of which have been drawn from firsthanded sources, yet i have never betrayed a confidence. even now one of those stories is being considered in a western town with a view to publication. With a view to assisting the brave Colonel, and his devoted wife mrs. lindberg to bring back to her bosom the tender offspring, with his tiny arms around her neck, with his little fingers causing that joy, which offers no parallel in the world and which only a mother can experience, i make an offer to the kidnappers, with instruction as to how to proceed to restore the beautiful baby to its mother’s arms. i offer $1000.—for anyone, who can prove to my satisfaction, in the history of the world where a catholic priest has ever betrayed the secrets of the confessional. it is upon this universal that i wish to help Colonel lindberg as follows. to the Kidnapper. in addition to the $50,000 offered by the Colonel, i offer $1000, which i have saved from my salary, if the one who handed the Colonel’s son out of the window to the man on the ladder, will go to a “Catholic priest” and confess his or her transgression, giving the child unharmed to any priest whom the kidnaper will name. i stand ready in person at my own expense to go anywhere, alone on land or water to give the kidnaper the extra money, and promise never to utter his or her name to anyone. i appeal for the mother of the child, for the sake of him, who suffered at mount Calvary, before his mother, who suffered anguish and whose heart was pierced with sorrow. instead of threats and thoughts of punishment for the erring one, i appeal to the inner soul of the man or woman. For the sake of his own mother, that he may offer restitution for his crime, i offer all that i could scrape together $1000, of my own money, so that a loving mother may again have her darling child, so that people will know that the greatest criminal in the world has a bright spot in his heart, and that Colonel Charles a. lindberg may know that the american people, of whom, i claim to be one, are grateful for the honor that he bestowed upon the united states by his pluck and daring.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

J. F. C.

--

/355348t

| 37 |

let the kidnaper, who may be here among us know that i write of my own free will, that no testimony of mine or coming from me will be used against him and that this is an appeal for the sake of humanity, while i gave all that i can, to him, $1000, just for being manly by giving back the child to his mother. John F. Condon4

on march 8, 1932, the Bronx Home News published edited portions of the letter as part of an overall story about Condon’s offer. The appearance of this article caused quite a stir throughout the Bronx. some praised Condon for his offer, while most felt the old man was involving himself in the case to boost his already enormous ego. Complete strangers began calling Condon’s home to chastise him for being an embarrassment and a fool. The new Jersey state police were aware of the article, but paid little attention. They felt that the Bronx Home News was too small a publication for the kidnapper to notice. They were wrong. on the evening of march 9, 1932, Condon returned to his home and perused through his mail. he was nearly through the stack when he saw an envelope addressed in very crude handwriting: mr. dr. John Condon 2974 decatur ave. new york, ny 5

Condon was stunned and hesitated. he never really expected to get a reply from the kidnapper. mailing his letter was merely a way to obtain some attention and recognition for himself. By making the offer, Condon could strut through the streets of the Bronx and people would point their fingers and marvel at his act of bravery and heroism. now the kidnapper had called his bluff and Condon’s life would never be the same. Condon would later write that the few seconds it took him to open the envelope were the most thrilling moments of his life.6 The envelope contained a smaller envelope and a handwritten letter. Carefully unfolding the note, Condon read it. dear sir: if you are willing to act as go-between in lindbergh cace pleace follow stricly instruction. handel incloced letter personaly to mr. lindbergh. it will explan everyding. don’t tell anyone about

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 38 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

it as sun we find out the press or police is notifyd everyding are cansell and it will be a further delay. affter you gets the mony from mr. lindbergh but these 3 words in the New-York American. mony is redy. affter that we will give you further instruction. don’t be afrait we are not out fore your 1000$ keep it. only act stricly. Be at home every night between 6–12 by this time you will hear from us 7

not surprisingly, this note, the second written to someone other than Colonel lindbergh, did not contain the “singnature” symbol.8 obviously, the kidnapper had no intention of sharing his “singnature” with anyone other than lindbergh. Condon decided to show the letters to some of his friends so they would know that he had received word from the kidnappers of the lindbergh baby. Certainly this would make him look important. stuffing the letter and sealed envelope into his breast pocket, Condon rode a trolley to a restaurant at 2469 Grand Concourse, which was owned by his friend max rosenhain. in his book, Jafsie Tells All, Condon wrote that he went there to find his friend al reich because he wanted to get a ride to the lindbergh estate.9 While there is some truth to that, it is much more likely that he wanted to boast and brag of his great importance. al reich was not at the restaurant that evening. Condon could not contain himself, so he sat down with max rosenhain, showed him the letter he had just received, and told him of his plan to have al reich drive him to the lindbergh home. since reich was not around that evening, rosenhain suggested that he talk with another man in the restaurant, milton Gaglio, who quickly agreed to drive Condon. Before leaving, Condon used the restaurant’s pay phone to call Charles lindbergh. his call was initially answered by a state trooper. Condon took great pains to mention his academic credentials, but also made it quite clear that he intended to speak only to Colonel lindbergh. What happened next has been hotly disputed. Condon always maintained that Colonel lindbergh came on the line to talk with him; however, many historians question this assertion. some have suggested that someone pretending to be lindbergh actually took the call while others have defended Condon’s claim.10 There

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

J. F. C.

--

/355348t

| 39 |

This is the first note sent to John “Jafsie” Condon. There was also an envelope containing a letter that Condon was to deliver to lindbergh. There is no “singnature” on this letter.

really is no way to tell whether lindbergh took the call or not. no mention is made one way or the other in his memoirs and no reports or documents confirm this. While we cannot answer this question conclusively, we can make an educated guess. other callers and visitors to the estate had been able to speak with Charles and anne lindbergh. Furthermore, lindbergh was very much in charge of the investigation to the point of micromanaging it. he wanted to be made aware of every detail and certainly would have taken the call if asked to do so. There is little doubt that Condon would have insisted on speaking to lindbergh directly. Given

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 40 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

that Condon was a well-spoken college professor with good credentials, it is quite possible that he would have been allowed to speak with the Colonel. if it was someone pretending to be lindbergh, he must have had some basic knowledge of the case because he later recognized Condon’s description of the kidnapper’s symbol. regardless, lindbergh or someone claiming to be lindbergh came on the line to speak with the doctor. Condon, excited at the opportunity to speak with his hero, quickly told him about the letter and sealed envelope. The man asked Condon to open the sealed letter and read the contents to him. The enclosed letter read: dear sir, mr. Condon may act as go—between. you may give him the 70000 $. make one packet. the size will bee about

at this point in the letter, a small three-dimensional box was drawn showing these measurements: six inches high, seven inches wide, and fourteen inches long. The letter continued: We have notifyt your alredy in what kind of bills. We warn you not toset any trapp in any way. if you or someone els will notify the police ther will be a further delay affter we have the mony in hand we will tell you where to find your boy you may have a airplan redy it is about150 mil awy. But befor telling you the adr. a delay of 8 houer will be between.11

When Condon finished reading the letter, the man on the phone seemed disinterested and asked if there was anything else. Condon replied that there was one additional item on the letter, which he described as secant circles with three horizontal dots or holes across the diameter of the intersecting circles and the circles were tinted red and blue.12 obviously, the man on the other end realized that this was the “singnature” used by the real kidnapper. he told Condon he would send a car, but the doctor insisted that he would drive to the new Jersey estate himself. around midnight, Condon, rosenhain, and Gaglio left the restaurant and drove to new Jersey. according to Condon, they stopped at the Baltimore lunch room in princeton for coffee and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

J. F. C.

| 41 |

This is the letter to lindbergh that was enclosed with the message to John Condon.

directions.13 Condon also told of meeting several unknown men who scoffed at his claims that he could get into the lindbergh estate.14 eventually, Condon and his friends obtained directions and made their way to the sourland estate, arriving around three o’clock in the morning. They were met by Colonel Breckinridge, who brought them upstairs to meet Charles lindbergh. Condon presented the two letters to Breckinridge and lindbergh, who could see that they were authentic. Condon’s letters were written with similar ink and paper. Both contained clearly German sentence construction and misspellings. The note inside the sealed envelope contained the identical “singnature” symbol. lindbergh felt he had found his go-between.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 42 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Because it was late, lindbergh asked the three men to stay. rosenhain and Gaglio declined and returned to new york. Condon was put up in the only room available, the child’s nursery. Condon writes about a series of events that occurred during the few hours he spent at the estate that evening. he alleges that he asked to meet mrs. lindbergh and recounts a story in which he offered her comfort and encouragement.15 Though Condon would probably have made such a request given his sense of self-importance, the event likely did not occur as he described it. While he did meet mrs. lindbergh that evening, Condon glorified the meeting. investigation of John Condon reveals a man who was obsessed with his public image, but he was not someone who would blatantly lie. he tended to exaggerate, but only to make himself seem more heroic and worthy of praise. This tendency to exaggerate and promote himself would become very problematic later in the case. The following morning, Condon looked around the child’s nursery. he helped himself to two safety pins that were still holding down the child’s blanket, as well as some of the toy animals.16 he told lindbergh at breakfast what he had done and said he wanted to use them to help identify the child. lindbergh told Condon that the child would refer to the wooden elephant as “elepunt.” Condon also said he wanted to see if the writer of the notes could identify the safety pins. lindbergh agreed. after breakfast, lindbergh, Breckinridge, and Condon met upstairs. Condon was given a note, dated march 10, 1932, which read: “We hereby authorize dr. John F. Condon to act as go-between for us.” This note was signed by both Charles and anne lindbergh. Colonel Breckinridge was assigned to comply with the kidnapper’s instructions and place an ad with the words “money is ready” in the New York American. however, the men realized that the ad could not appear under Condon’s name. to do so would attract press attention to him, thus compromising and probably ruining his usefulness as a go-between. it was decided that a code name was needed. dr. Condon suggested the name “Jafsie,” which was what his initials, J. F. C., sounded like when said quickly. lindbergh agreed to this nickname and the ad was created. it read: “i accept. money is ready. Jafsie.” and appeared on march 11, 1932. Condon was allowed to examine several pictures of the missing baby. By some accounts, he was allowed to take a few with him. he was then driven back to his home in the Bronx by Colonel Breckinridge. When they arrived, Breckinridge suggested that he stay at Condon’s home during the negotiations. Condon agreed immediately. What he did not know was the primary reason for Breckinridge’s request: Condon was not yet fully trusted.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 5 |

Violet and Curtis: two Bogus stories Begin

While Colonel Breckinridge was placing the first ad in the New York American, a very dubious character was about to join the circus. John hughes Curtis had a conversation with rev. h. dobson-peacock at a church in norfolk, Virginia. Curtis claimed that he had been approached the prior evening by a man named sam. sam was a very large man whom Curtis knew as a rumrunner. according to Curtis, sam approached him and asked for his help in contacting Charles lindbergh. sam said he represented a gang that had kidnapped lindbergh’s son. The gang wanted a prominent person from Virginia to act as a go-between, and Curtis was that person. after considering sam’s request, Curtis decided he would help. he claimed that he would agree to have money sent to the gang only after the child was returned. sam supposedly agreed to these terms. obviously, no gang involved in a kidnapping would agree to turn the child over without getting the money first. The fact that this mysterious sam would agree to such terms should have tipped off anyone listening that the story was phony, yet dobson-peacock was convinced. Curtis had a solid reputation in his community, and that seemed to be enough for the reverend. John Curtis was the owner of Curtis Boat Building Corporation, a large shipbuilding company. he was a popular man known for his active social life and was married with two children. rev. dobson-peacock called the lindbergh estate with this vital information. he was not permitted to speak to Colonel lindbergh and had to settle for morris rosner. he told rosner about Curtis and his wild story, but rosner simply did not believe him. Frustrated, the reverend hung up. since dobson-peacock was unable to get past rosner, Curtis, at the suggestion of his wife, went to see adm. Guy hamilton Burrage. admiral Burrage knew Charles lindbergh as he was in command of the ship that had returned lindbergh to the united states after his historic flight across the atlantic. admiral Burrage listened to Curtis and dobson-peacock and, surprisingly, believed their story. he called the sourland estate and was able, after some delay, | 43 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 44 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

to speak with lindbergh himself. lindbergh then spoke with Curtis. The Colonel did not seem to believe Curtis and told Burrage to have the men write him a letter requesting a meeting. it would seem that lindbergh did not want to dismiss Curtis entirely, but was not thrilled by the story either.1 eventually, after writing a letter requesting a meeting, Curtis, Burrage, and dobson-peacock met personally with Charles lindbergh on march 22, 1932. Curtis maintained that he had had additional contact with sam between the date of Burrage’s phone call and the meeting with Colonel lindbergh. on march 17, Curtis reported that sam had contacted him again. The kidnap gang was becoming anxious to receive the ransom money. sam assured Curtis that the baby was being treated well. The gang hired a nurse and was following the diet provided to the public by anne lindbergh. The child was being kept on a boat somewhere off the norfolk coast. Curtis did not provide specifics on how sam had contacted him. Curtis received word from sam the very next day. as a sign of good faith, the gang wanted lindbergh to deposit $25,000 into an account under the names of Burrage, dobson-peacock, and Curtis. Curtis claimed to have told sam that no money would change hands until the baby was returned. on march 22, the day of the meeting in new Jersey, the three men were met by Colonel lindbergh and Colonel schwartzkopf. The group went to the library to talk, and Curtis went over his entire fantastic story again. When he finished, he asked lindbergh how much he would pay for his son’s return. lindbergh, to his credit, did not answer the question directly. instead, he told Curtis he would need more proof before he would commit himself. he also told Curtis that he thought they were being deceived, although he did not reveal why he thought so.2 lindbergh had a suggestion that he thought would provide the proof Curtis required from sam. Curtis was to ask sam to provide a picture of the child taken after march 1, 1932, or a letter from the gang with an identifying symbol that lindbergh did not specify. if such evidence was produced, then lindbergh would be willing to begin negotiations. Burrage, dobson-peacock, and Curtis left very disappointed. two days later, the actions of John Curtis were leaked to the media. While there has never been any evidence proving who leaked the story, it seems probable that John Curtis himself leaked it. he was the only person with something to gain. he achieved instant notoriety, which was certainly one of his primary goals. The media reported that Curtis was negotiating directly with the kidnappers. once the story was printed, rumors filled in the rest. it was said that Curtis and dobson-peacock were preparing to pay the ransom to the kidnappers. The media swarmed all over the men, hoping to get the exclusive story. dobson-peacock granted an interview that same day. he discussed their meeting with lindbergh and stated that he and Curtis were in direct contact with the kidnappers and were prepared to make a ransom exchange. The baby was being held on a boat in the Chesapeake Bay and would be returned in a matter of days.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Violet and Curtis: Two Bogus Stories Begin

/355348t

| 45 |

dobson-peacock’s claims were printed by a local paper and appeared nationwide the following day. The New York Daily News ran a story that prominently featured dobson-peacock’s statement that the missing child was on a boat.3 This and other articles concerning the boat would become significant later in the investigation. it would also become clear that the real kidnapper read these stories. now the bogus claims of John Curtis were not only public, but were also being reported worldwide. infuriated, lindbergh issued a public statement through h. norman schwartzkopf. The meeting with the three men from norfolk was confirmed, but the information provided by them “was found to have no special significance.”4 John Curtis relished the media attention. after hearing schwartzkopf ’s statement, he announced that he had been contacted again by the mysterious sam, this time through a phone call from philadelphia. Curtis told sam about his meeting with lindbergh, and sam promised to provide the requested proof. it was never provided. rev. dobson-peacock was equally reprehensible in his reaction. he now claimed that lindbergh had given full authority to him and his two associates to negotiate with the kidnap gang. When confronted with schwartzkopf ’s statement to the contrary, he countered that schwartzkopf had been trying to hinder them from the beginning, though lindbergh was on their side. neither Curtis nor dobson-peacock was yet aware that their actions had not only caused significant damage to the investigation but also nearly derailed the negotiations with the real kidnapper. unfortunately, this would not be the last time that Curtis involved himself in this case. meanwhile, the police investigation continued. on the same day that rev. dobson-peacock first called the lindbergh estate, the police were interviewing the lindberghs’ servants who worked at the morrow estate. each servant was interviewed at the sourland estate while his or her room and possessions were being searched. on march 10, the police interviewed a young maid named Violet sharp.5 Violet, twenty-eight years old and originally from Bradfield, england, had been employed by the morrows and was rumored to be romantically involved with septimus Banks, the head of the household staff. she was pretty with short dark hair and brown eyes. Generally, she was pleasant and popular among the rest of the staff. The detectives expected their interview with Violet to be a matter of routine. They were greatly surprised when Violet was uncooperative and rather sharptongued. she resented being questioned and was extremely nervous. When asked about her activities on the evening of the kidnapping, she became very evasive. she continually asked why her personal life was of any importance. eventually, she began to answer the questions. she and her sister emily met a man on February 28 while walking on lydecker street. Violet thought she knew him, so she responded when the man waved at her from his car. Though she soon realized that she did not actually know him, she agreed to accept a ride home from him because he seemed like a nice person. on the way home, she agreed to go out on a date with him and he promised to call her in the future.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 46 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Violet and emily sharp.

on the day of the kidnapping, Violet received a call around 11:30 a.m. from anne lindbergh, who wanted to speak with Betty Gow. later, Gow told sharp that she was going to hopewell to care for the baby. around 8 p.m. that evening, Violet received a call from the man she had met asking her to the movies. she agreed and was picked up at the morrow estate about thirty minutes later. There was another couple in the back seat and the four of them went to the show. Violet said she returned home around 11 p.m. that evening. although she made a second date with the man, she subsequently cancelled it. The police were not suspicious of the story until Violet could not recall the names of the movie, the theater, or of the other couple. she could not even remember the name of her date. When pressed, the most she could recall was that the theater was in englewood. she continued to object to questions about her personal life, but still gave no details that she should have known. unable to get any more information, the police finished their questioning and sent Violet back to englewood. Before doing so, they went through her personal belongings and found a bank book from a new york City bank with a balance of

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Violet and Curtis: Two Bogus Stories Begin

/355348t

| 47 |

$1,600. This was a tremendous amount of money during the Great depression, especially for a servant whose salary was only $100 per month. although it was possible for her to have saved this amount over the years since she had no room or board expenses, the police were highly suspicious given her evasive attitude and inability to answer simple questions. additionally, the police were keenly aware that Violet knew of the lindberghs’ plan to stay in hopewell on the evening of the kidnapping. They fully intended to question her again and very much wanted to learn the identity of her mystery date, but they would not interrogate her again for nearly a month. While these two bogus tales were developing, the most significant part of the investigation was just getting started. on the day following the first interview of Violet sharp, the initial ad appeared in the classified section of the New York American indicating that the money was ready. around noon, John Condon’s wife, mora, received a phone call. The caller, who had a heavy German accent, asked for dr. Condon. mrs. Condon said her husband was out but would return home around six o’clock and offered to take a message. The caller declined to leave his name, but left a message saying, “tell the doctor to stay at home.” The man also said he would call again around seven. That evening, around 6:00 p.m., Condon returned home with Colonel Breckinridge. his wife told him of the strange call she had received. Condon’s friend, al reich, arrived a few minutes later and the three men began discussing the phone call. They all agreed that the call must have been from the kidnapper. around 7:00 p.m., the phone rang. dr. Condon answered and a man with a guttural German accent asked, “did you gottit my note with the signature?” Jafsie noticed right away that the man pronounced the word “signature” as “singnature,” just the way it was written in the ransom notes. Condon replied, “yes, i got your letter.” “i saw your ad in the New York American,” the guttural voice continued. Condon then asked, “Where are you calling from?” The caller paused and said, “Westchester.”6 after another pause, the caller asked, “dr. Condon, do you sometimes write pieces for the papers?” Condon acknowledged that he did. at this point, the caller said, in a muffled voice, “he says he sometimes writes pieces for the papers.” in his book, Jafsie Tells All, Condon writes that he felt the caller was speaking to a companion. Whether he was talking with an accomplice is not known, although it was certainly possible. it is also just as possible that the man was pretending to talk with someone to make Condon believe there was more than one kidnapper. The caller then spoke loudly to Condon, “stay at home from six to twelve. you will receive a note with instructions. act accordingly or all will be off.” Condon promised to do as instructed.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 48 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

as he finished speaking, Condon distinctly heard a woman’s voice yell, “Statti citto!” Condon recognized this as italian, which roughly translates as “shut up!” almost immediately, the caller said, “you will hear from us” and hung up the phone.7 Condon came to the conclusion that the italian woman was a fellow conspirator. Though possible, if the call was made in a public place, such as the Westchester subway station, the voice could have been that of someone just walking by. perhaps this was another of Condon’s exaggerations. There is just no way to know. after the man hung up, Condon told Breckinridge and reich the details of the call. Breckinridge felt sure that they were in contact with the real kidnapper. he said that they now had to assemble the money and find a box matching the dimensions specified by the kidnapper. Condon retrieved a wooden ballot box with brass fittings. he suggested that a copy be made of this box so that it would be easily identifiable. he further suggested that box be made of five different kinds of wood.8 Breckinridge agreed. The following morning, a saturday, Condon went to a local cabinetmaker to arrange for the box’s construction. The job would cost $3 and would be finished in four days.9 later that evening, around six o’clock, Condon, Breckinridge, and al reich gathered at Condon’s small house at 2974 decatur street. at 7:30 p.m., the bell rang. Condon excitedly went to the door. to his dismay, two more of his friends, milton Gaglio and max rosenhain, had arrived. Colonel Breckinridge was furious. What if the kidnapper was watching the house? The arrival of these men could scare him off. obviously, Condon had informed them that something momentous was about to happen and they wanted to see it. The five men waited for nearly an hour. Breckinridge expressed concern that the kidnapper might have changed his plans. at that moment, the doorbell rang. Condon went to the door, but did not recognize the man standing there. perhaps the kidnapper had finally arrived.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 6 |

“Cemetery John”

on the evening of march 12, 1932, Joseph perrone was driving his cab east on Knox place in the Bronx, just after dropping off a fare at 3440 Gates place. When he reached the corner of Knox place and Gun hill road, he saw a man running toward him, trying to catch his attention. The man was wearing a brown overcoat and brown felt hat. he had blue eyes, light brown hair, and a full face.1 perrone stopped his cab and opened the passenger window as the man attempted to open the door. The man pointed to a white envelope and asked, “do you know vare decatur avenue iss?” perrone replied, “yes, i do.” “do you know vare 2974 iss?” the man asked. “yes, i know where that number is,” perrone answered. The unknown man continued, “dat iss near 201st street, issn’t it?” “That’s just about where it is,” perrone said. “how much vood the clock do dere?” the man asked. “about fifty cents,” perrone replied.2

The man handed the envelope and a dollar bill to perrone. The envelope was addressed to dr. Condon and bore his decatur street address. as perrone examined the letter, the man walked to the rear of the car and appeared to write down the license plate number. Before perrone could get out of the car, the man walked off into the night. perrone drove back to his hack stand at moshola parkway and Jerome avenue. There he met John o’Brien, a fellow cab driver. he showed him the envelope and told him of the man who stopped him. o’Brien recognized Condon’s name. “That is dr. Condon, the man that is offering $1,000 in the kidnapping case!” o’Brien exclaimed.3 perrone decided at that point to deliver the letter. he drove to decatur street and found the right house. he rang the bell and dr. Condon answered the door. “Well, what is it, young man?” Condon demanded. | 49 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 50 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Joseph perrone, the cab driver who delivered a ransom note to John Condon.

“i have a letter for dr. Condon,” perrone volunteered.4 Condon invited perrone into the house. milton Gaglio examined perrone’s identification while Breckinridge listened to perrone retell his encounter with the writer of the note. Condon ripped open the envelope. inside was a folded one-page letter. Condon quickly read it: mr. Condon We trust you, but we will note come in your haus it is too danger. even you cane note know if police or secret servise is watching you follow this instrunction. take a car and drive to the last supway stattion from Jerome ave line. 100 feet from the east station on the left seide is a empty frank further stand with a big open porch around, you will find a notise in senter of the porch underneath a stone. this notise will tell you were to find him.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Cemetery John”

--

/355348t

| 51 |

act accordingly. after ¾ of a houer be on the plase. bring the mony with you.5

on the lower right corner of the note was the now familiar “singnature” symbol. There was no question about its authenticity. There was a question, though, as to what to do next because the men were guilty of false advertising. The money would not be ready for several days. They briefly discussed the matter and decided that they must follow the kidnapper’s instructions. Condon would follow the directions and ask for more time to get the money. al reich offered to drive and the two men left in his Ford.

This is the letter delivered to John Condon by cab driver Joseph perrone. it is the first ransom note not addressed to Colonel lindbergh that has the “singnature.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 52 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This is the note left for John Condon on the front porch of the empty frankfurter stand.

The night was cold and quiet as the men drove down Jerome avenue. al reich expressed concern to his friend that he might be walking into an ambush. Condon bragged that he would use his fists if provoked. if he was afraid, his ego would never allow him to admit it. The car slowed when the last subway station came into view. The frankfurter stand was on the west side of the street, deserted and falling apart. its front porch was sagging and deteriorating. The kidnapper had chosen an isolated location. Condon walked to the porch and saw a large stone directly in the middle of the porch. underneath was another long white envelope. taking the envelope, Condon walked to the nearest streetlight, opened it, and found a small note. he read it aloud:

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Cemetery John”

--

/355348t

| 53 |

cross the street and follow the fence from the cemetery. direction to 233 street i will meet you.6

The letter did not have the “singnature” symbol, but was clearly by the same hand, although it had been written very quickly. Condon returned to the car and reich made a u-turn, going back down Jerome avenue toward 233rd street. The area they entered was even more isolated and forbidding. Van Cortlandt park was on one side of the street and Woodlawn Cemetery on the other. The nine-foot stone-and-iron gate of the graveyard was locked for the evening. The grave markers and trees formed black silhouettes against the night. reich stopped the car about fifty feet from the 233rd street intersection. as Condon prepared to go, reich offered to come along with the idea of grabbing the kidnapper. Condon refused, saying that rash action might cause harm to the baby. he would go alone. as Condon walked toward the ominous gate, reich joked, “When they shoot you tonight, they won’t have to carry you far to bury you.”7

Woodlawn Cemetery.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 54 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Condon walked to the gates and stopped. There was no one there. he waited nervously for a few minutes before returning to the car. The two men looked at the notes again to see if they had followed the directions correctly. While they were talking, they noticed a man walking south from 233rd street. Condon approached, but the man ignored him and kept walking.8 There was no indication that this man had anything to do with the matter at all. Condon decided to return to the main gates and waited there for nearly fifteen minutes. suddenly, through the bars of the gate, he saw a white handkerchief being waved. Condon yelled out, “i see you all right!” and approached the gate. From behind one of the tombstones, a man dressed in a dark overcoat and a felt hat with the brim pulled down walked quickly to the inside of the gate. he put the handkerchief over his nose and mouth when he reached the gate. The two men were now facing one another, separated by the gate. “did you got my note?” the man asked in a thick German accent. Condon replied, “yes, i received it, but i cannot bring the money up here without some evidence that you have the baby.” “have you gotted the money?” the man repeated. again, Condon said, “no, i could not bring the money until i saw the baby or heard where the baby is.” “i tout dat you would brought the money,” the nervous man insisted.9 at that moment, both men heard someone else approaching from inside the cemetery. The man put his handkerchief into his coat pocket, exposing his face to Condon. “There is a cop,” the man exclaimed. While Condon insisted he was alone, the man grabbed the iron bars and effortlessly scaled the nine-foot gate, landing directly in front of Condon. “it is too dangerous!” the man yelled and ran across the street into Van Cortlandt park. The footsteps were those of robert riehl, the night watchman for the cemetery. he saw Condon standing at the gate and witnessed the other man jump over the gate and run into the park. he asked Condon what was going on. Condon told him he would find out and took off after the first man. riehl waited for nearly ten minutes before going back to work.10 While Condon was talking with the mystery man at the gate, al reich was watching from his car. he could not get a good look at the man’s face, but was able to see everything Condon was doing. John Condon eventually caught up with the man in Van Cortlandt park. Condon maintained that he overtook the man because he was in such fine physical condition. Then, grabbing him by the elbow and forcing him to sit down, Condon gave him a tongue-lashing.11 al reich’s version (from his written statement to the police) is more believable. he wrote that the man stopped running and allowed Condon to catch up. This makes more sense. Condon was in good shape for his age, but was still seventy-two years

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Cemetery John”

--

/355348t

| 55 |

old. it is unlikely he was able to outrun a man half his age. This is a good example of how Condon would tell the truth, but recount it with self-promoting bravado. Condon did catch up to the man, just not in the overly dramatic way he reported. The two men sat on a bench near a small shack. Condon did his best to calm the man and assure him that he was alone. to make sure he was dealing with the right man, Condon showed him the two safety pins, which the man identified as the pins that attached the child’s blanket to the mattress. Condon now felt he was definitely dealing with the right man. For the next hour, the two men talked. The contents of this conversation have been reported in a variety of different ways. Condon himself altered the conversation whenever he retold the tale. as usual, Condon always made himself more brave and daring each time. The earliest recorded version of this conversation is a “transcript” maintained by the Federal Bureau of investigation. according to this document, the following conversation took place: Condon: i made arrangements to go and get the money at any time you show me the evidence. The Man: The boss would not stand for it, he would schmuch me up. Condon: i shall go as hostage until i get the money for you. The Man: as vat? Condon: i shall stay with the baby until i get you the money and i shall give you in addition to the reward my own $1000.00, which is all that i have now. The Man: no, the boss would not stand for it, he would be mad if he knows that i waited so long and said so much. Condon: What name shall i call you? The Man: Just call me John. Condon: What would your mother say if she knew that you took the Colonel’s baby? John: she would not like it, she would cry. i am sorry i got into this business. Condon: how many are there of you? John: There is two womens and four mens. Condon: how do you propose to divide the money and what do you propose for me to do? John: We are going to give $10,000 to me, ten to the womens, ten to the other two mens each and $20,000 to the high official and we are all make arrangements to park some for law to free us. Condon: John, take my offer, you will receive more than $10,000 and then i can help by telling how you helped me to get the baby. John: Would i burn if the baby is dead? Condon: i don’t know the facts. John: Would i burn if i did not kill it?

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 56 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Condon: how is the baby? John: Better als it was with the mudder, and we feed it more als directions. Condon: Come on, John, take me to the baby and i will give you $50,000 and my $1,000. John: no, the boss would schmuck me oud. you think as how we are not the right ones. i will send you proof. i will send you the sleeping garment that the baby was in and you will see the Colonel, that will prove that we are the right parties. The Colonel is off the track. They are not the right parties on the case. Those others are not the right parties. Condon: What about red Johnson? John: he is innozent. Betty Gow has nottin to do wid it. Condon: Where did you come from, John? John: up near Boston, about 6 or 7 hours from here and you can’t get in because it is too dangerous. Colonel lindbergh can fly there. tell Colonel lindbergh that the baby is on a boat and we will tell him where the boat is. Condon: how can you tell the boat, John? John: The boat is disguised on the top of the masts. They are white, bound around with table cloths which can be taken off. That is the way i know the boat. it has two masts. it is too much risk to keep the baby on shore so we keep the baby on boat with two womens. i can signal them from the point where i stand. i can signal and they see me, then they come and get me. one womens takes care of the baby in the day and one in the night. you can come wid the Colonel. number two knows you and we all drust you. Condon: Why didn’t number two come to see me? John: he was afraid. he said you might know him. you are afraid if we are the parties. our letter has the signal just like we left on the baby’s crib on the night we took the baby. tell the Colonel not to waste his time on those parties. We are the right parties. tell mrs. lindbergh not to worry, the baby is better. Feed als we read in the newspapers. (John started coughing.) Condon: let me get something for your cough, John. put down your collar. don’t be afraid—the idea of you being afraid of a school-teacher. John: no, i could not. i got a cold. Condon: Can you speak German? John: no, i am scandinavian. Condon: lindbergh is a scandinavian too. you should not have anything against him. John: i was brought in this case because they had something on me. i did not want to go in on the case and i wish i was oud. They did not think the case would last a week but now we had to take somebody else in and the Colonel will have to pay $70,000.00. Condon: you made the bargain with lindbergh for $50,000 and you ought to abide by it.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Cemetery John”

--

/355348t

| 57 |

John: There is a very high man involved in this. it was planned for a year already before it was actually performed. Condon: Who is the high man? John: he is very smart, one of the smartest men. he is in the government services. Well, i must go. i will send you the sleeping garment of the baby monday or tuesday. tell mrs. lindbergh not to worry because the baby is all right. Good night, i must go.

Cemetery John stood up, walked northward, and disappeared into the night. according to Condon, he shook hands with John before he left. This is extremely doubtful. neither al reich nor Condon mention this in their written statements. This handshake is recounted only in Condon’s book written some years later and is probably another of his enhancements. The exact conversation between Condon and Cemetery John is known only to the two of them. al reich was too far away to hear any of the conversation.12 mr. riehl, the cemetery guard, heard only a few seconds of the conversation when Cemetery John climbed over the gate. Thus, we are left only with John Condon to tell us what was said. unfortunately, his exaggerations and tendency to promote himself have resulted in several different versions of the conversation. There are several common points. First, there was concern about consequences if the baby was dead. second, the man expressed concern that lindbergh was dealing with the wrong people. likely he was referring to the entire Curtis fiasco. Third, the man reported that the child was on a boat. This may also demonstrate that Cemetery John read the newspaper articles about John Curtis and reverend dobson-peacock. The newspapers were carrying articles about the child being on a boat and may have inspired Cemetery John’s answer. perhaps, the name John may have been chosen from these articles as well. after the lengthy conversation, Condon returned to the car and al reich drove him home. Condon told Breckinridge about the entire event in considerable detail. he described John as being between five feet nine and five feet ten inches tall, with a triangular face, small mouth, and deep-set eyes. he was around thirty-five years old and weighed between 160 and 170 pounds. he was certain he could identify him if he saw him again. after the description, Condon recounted the conversation. Breckinridge listened intently, but was particularly intrigued by one comment. John had said that the kidnapping “was planned for a year already.” Condon had no way of knowing that two of the prior ransom notes contained almost the exact same expression.13 There seems to be no reason why that particular detail would have been fabricated. it did not serve to promote Condon’s image or make him seem more of a hero. That comment convinced Breckinridge that they were dealing with the real kidnapper and not an extortionist trying to cash in on the tragedy. after calling lindbergh to update him, Breckinridge and Condon sat down to

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 58 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

write the next advertisement. it would subsequently appear in the Bronx Home News on sunday, march 13, 1932. it read, “BaBy aliVe and Well—money is ready. Call and see us. JaFsie.”14 The following day, sunday, having heard nothing from the kidnapper, Condon drafted a second ad, which appeared in the Bronx Home News on march 14 and march 15. it read: “money is ready. no Cops. no seCret serViCe. no press. Come alone liKe the last time. please Call. JaFsie.15 The authorities were very much hoping that John would make contact again. if he did not, the odds of ever catching the kidnapper would become ever so slim.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

The Negotiations Continue

| 59 |

| 7 |

The negotiations Continue

on sunday, march 13, 1932, while dr. Condon was waiting for further word from the kidnapper, the police were bringing dr. erastus mead hudson, a fingerprint expert and physician, to the lindbergh estate. hudson was hoping to obtain fingerprints from the kidnapper’s ladder. hudson was trained in the use of fingerprints by scotland yard. he was now using a new method that involved spraying silver nitrate on the object to be tested. The salt traces from fingerprints mixed with the chemical, forming a new chemical called silver chloride. Then, when exposed to sunlight, the silver chloride turned a brownish red color in the form of the fingerprints. since the police had nothing to lose, they allowed hudson to perform his tests. With Corporal Kelly observing, hudson first processed several of the baby’s toys. he was able to discover the fingerprints of the missing baby on some of his remaining toys. Kelly used a special camera to photograph these prints. as a result, police had a method to identify the child in the future.1 The following morning, hudson was allowed to take the ladder outside into the sunlight and examine it. he lifted nearly five hundred fingerprints from the kidnapper’s ladder. This really demonstrated the inefficiency of the methods used by the state police. They had not obtained anywhere near that many. unfortunately, most of the prints were only partial prints or smudges and unusable. additionally, it was impossible to know if any of these prints were from the kidnapper or one of the numerous people who had handled the ladder. hudson realized that finding the kidnapper’s prints was a long shot. in all probability, any prints left by the builder were covered by those of the police and other handlers. in the end, eight usable prints were recovered. one was identified as belonging to lieutenant Bornmann. The remaining seven have never been identified. many writers and historians argue that the seven unidentified prints on the ladder prove that Bruno richard hauptmann, the man ultimately arrested and convicted for the crime, was innocent. his prints were not among the seven. however, this is not a fair statement to make. The ladder was handled by hundreds of people | 59 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 60 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

between march 1 and march 13, including, but not limited to, the police, the press, wood experts, and others. any prints left by the kidnapper were probably covered, smudged, and obliterated by all of the others. While hudson was examining the ladder, John Condon was looking through his morning mail, hoping for another letter from the kidnapper, but there was nothing. about an hour later, Condon received a phone call. he recognized John’s voice immediately. “doctor Condon?” “yes, John,” Condon replied. “What is wrong? i have been waiting—” “There has been delay sending the slipping-suit,” John interrupted. “it will come. you will have it soon.” he hung up the phone.2 Condon would not hear from the kidnapper again for two days. on Wednesday, around 10:30 a.m., he received a large soft package wrapped in brown paper. recognizing the writing on the label, Condon called Colonel Breckinridge at his office. Breckinridge contacted lindbergh, who promised to come to Condon’s home as soon as he could get away from the reporters. Forty minutes later, Breckinridge arrived at decatur street. Though Condon wanted to wait for lindbergh, Breckinridge insisted upon opening the package. he carefully untied the cords holding the bundle together. inside were a note and a gray one-piece sleeping suit buttoned in the rear with two buttons on the lower flap and four above. There was a small pocket on the chest and the label indicated it was a dr. denton brand. Breckinridge could not positively identify the garment, but knew that the child had worn similar clothing. only lindbergh could identify it. around 1:30 a.m., a visitor arrived. Condon opened the door and saw a tall slim man wearing a cap pulled over his brow and large sunglasses without an overcoat. Condon was shocked when the disguised man revealed himself to be Charles lindbergh. lindbergh’s estate was swarming with media and police. it had taken a disguise and the cover of night for lindbergh to slip away. First, lindbergh examined the gray garment. he looked at both sides and the label inside the neck. he counted the buttons and probed the sleeves with his fingers. after a few moments, lindbergh softly said, “This is my son’s sleeping-suit. it is the one he wore the night he was taken.”3 Then, lindbergh made another statement that surprised everyone in the room. “i wonder why they went to the trouble of having it cleaned?” “What?” asked Colonel Breckinridge. “The sleeping suit—it has been cleaned before being sent here. i wonder why?” lindbergh repeated.4 neither Condon nor Breckinridge could offer an explanation. There are many theories about why the garment had been washed. some speculate that the child’s blood needed to be removed. others theorize that the kidnapper was making sure he left no hair or fingerprints. another, more ominous theory would surface two months later.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 61 |

lindbergh now turned his attention to the note sent with the package. The kidnapper’s recognizable handwriting was on both sides. he read the note aloud: dear sir. ouer man faills to collect the mony. There are no more confidential conference after the meeting from march 12. those arrangements to hazardous for us. We will note allow ouer man to confer in the a way like befor. circumstance will note allow us to make a transfare luke you wish. it is imposibly for as. Why should we move the baby and face danger to take another person to the plase is entirerly out of question. it seems you are afraid if we are the right party and if the baby is allright. Well you have ouer singnature it is always the same as the first one specialy them 3 hohls 5

on the lower right corner of the page was the same symbol that had appeared on the previous notes. lindbergh flipped the note over and continued reading. now we will send you the sleepingsuit from the baby besides it means 3$ extra expenses becauce we have to pay another one. pleace tell mrs. lindbergh note to worry the baby is well. We only have to give him more food as the diet says. you are willing to pay the 70000 note 50000$ without seeing the baby first or note. let us know about that in the new york-american. We can’t do it other ways becauce we don’t like to give up ouer safty plase or to move the baby. if you are willing to accept this deal put this in the paper. i accept mony is redy

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 62 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This page (front) and facing page (back): This is the ransom note sent to Jafsie Condon along with the baby’s sleeping suit.

ouer program is: after 8 houers we have the mony receivd we will notify you where to find the baby. if there is any trapp, you will be responsible what will follows.6

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 63 |

on the lower left side, lindbergh could see the three holes from the “singnature” symbol on the other side. The handwriting was carefully written around them, demonstrating that the symbol had been on the paper before the note was written. Breckinridge was puzzled by one sentence: “circumstance will note allow us to make a transfare luke you wish.” Condon explained that his original letter to the Bronx Home News suggested that the kidnapper put the child in the care of a priest. he also had told John during their meeting that he would agree to be a hostage for purposes of the transfer.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 64 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The three men began discussing their next move. Condon did not want to agree to the kidnapper’s terms. he felt it was important to see the child first. lindbergh vehemently disagreed. he was concerned that the child might be harmed if they varied from the demands. Thus far, the kidnapper had followed through on all promises and lindbergh felt confident his child would be returned. after much debate, the next advertisement was drafted. it read: “i accept. money is ready. John. your package is delivered and is o.k. direct me” and appeared in both the Bronx Home News and New York American the following day. When the ad was complete, lindbergh donned his disguise and left for home. The following afternoon, $50,000 was delivered to the Corn exchange Bank, Fordham branch, with instructions to allow dr. Condon access to it at any time. lindbergh had declined numerous offers to lend him $70,000. he felt it was his obligation to raise the money. selling off his various stock holdings had produced $50,000 and he was still working on the extra $20,000. his efforts were frustrated by an article printed by the Daily Mirror that very day. according to the tabloid, lindbergh had been given $250,000 by the bank. This was an alarming report. if John were to see this, he might get greedy and demand more. lindbergh was struggling to raise the current amount and did not want any further delay. as if this were not bad enough, the same paper reported that lindbergh was prepared to pay the ransom to a syndicate of gangsters in Chicago. Condon read this and was incensed. This article could make John conclude that lindbergh did not take him seriously. determined to do something, Condon did what he usually did. he wrote a letter to the Bronx Home News. it is my sincere hope that our sworn officials may have their acumen and insight directed in proper channels to drive from the face of the earth this great canker-sore of our nation, the stratum known as the organized gangster-kidnapers, whose lawlessness makes a mockery of the laws of the greatest country on God’s earth and who are a menace to public decency and public safety.7

not wanting to sign his own name or use the Jafsie moniker, Condon signed the letter p.a. triot. This was not the only letter received by the newspaper. The advertisements posted by the mysterious Jafsie were not just read by the kidnapper. people were calling and writing letters to the paper requesting the identity of Jafsie. other media sources were speculating about these ads as well. in fact, a reporter named laura Vitray offered some insight into the speculation about these ads in her book, published in early 1932.8 her writing reveals that the media were following these ads closely. she writes: “now, if the object of these personals was to slip word to the kidnapers without arousing the attentions of the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 65 |

police, the secret service, or the press, they were couched in language that was a hopeless giveaway.”9 The book also makes clear that the media were stumped as to the identity of Jafsie. ms. Vitray claims that the press speculated that Jafsie was possibly rev. dobson-peacock.10 to reduce the number of phone calls and letters, the Bronx Home News publicly announced that they had no knowledge of Jafsie’s identity or whether the ads had anything to do with the lindbergh kidnapping. some reporters were a little more aggressive. one had stopped by Condon’s home to see if he had received a reply to his $1,000 offer printed by the Bronx Home News. Condon said he had received only a few crank calls and the man left. had this reporter stayed for a few hours longer, he would have seen Charles lindbergh arrive to examine the sleeping suit. What a story that would have been.11 This man must have been suspicious of Condon’s involvement because he returned on Friday, the following day, with several other reporters. They were waiting for Condon in front his house, determined to speak with him. ironically, dr. Condon had to don a disguise to slip away from the press much like lindbergh had done the night before. however, as in all things he did, Condon’s disguise was not simple. instead, he wore a long black coat with a fur collar and a felt hat with a giant turkey feather. The coat was pulled up to hide his large mustache.12 somehow, he got through. apparently, the members of the press were not very observant. lindbergh and Breckinridge were concerned. if Jafsie’s identity were to be made public, any chance of contacting the kidnapper would be seriously jeopardized, if not destroyed. to add to their concern, there was no word from the kidnapper over the next two days. to try to prompt a response, Breckinridge and lindbergh drafted a new ad for the newspaper, which ran on march 20 and 21 and read: “inForm me hoW i Can Get important letter to you; urGent—JaFsie.”13 on saturday, march 19, 1932, Condon appeared at a Bronx charity bazaar with his collection of violins, some of which he was selling to raise money for the event. in the late afternoon, Condon was approached by a short middle-aged woman with an oval face and olive skin who said she wanted to see some violins. Condon started with a lengthy lecture about his violins and the various types of wood used in their construction. The woman suddenly interrupted him. “nothing can be done until the excitement is over. There is too much publicity. meet me at the depot at tuckahoe, Wednesday at five in the afternoon. i will have a message for you.”14 after making her startling statement, the woman turned and left. she walked to the Third avenue elevated train and vanished into the station. Condon never saw her again. he was convinced that this woman was John’s accomplice. remember, Condon claimed that he heard a woman’s voice on the telephone yell “shut up!” in italian when he was speaking with the kidnapper. Cemetery John had also said that two women were part of the gang during the conversation in Woodlawn Cemetery.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 66 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

two days later, and one day before his appointment at tuckahoe, Condon received a letter in the morning mail. according to the postmark, it was mailed at 7:30 p.m. on march 19 from station n. Just as before, the envelope contained a single page written in blue ink. dear sir. you and mr. lindbergh know ouer program. if you don’t accept den we will wait untill you agree with ouer deal. We know you have to come to us any way But why should mrs and mr. lindbergh suffer longer as necessary We will note communicate with you or mr lindbergh until you write so in the paper. We will tell you again; this kid naping cace whas prepared for a yaer already so the polise won’t have any luck to find us or the child you only puch everyding further out didyou send that little package to mr lindbergh? it contains The sleepingsuit from the The baby is well. Baby.15

like previous notes, the “singnature” symbol was located in the lower right corner with the text of the letter written around it. on the back of the letter, the kidnapper wrote an additional sentence: mr lindbergh only wasting time with his search16

Condon summoned Breckinridge immediately. Both were concerned about the kidnapper’s statement: “if you don’t accept den we will wait untill you agree with ouer deal. We know you have to come to us any way.” This seemed to suggest that John had not seen the advertisements. it also reflected a tone of nervousness and hesitation. if John did not feel that it was safe to communicate, then the baby could be in serious danger. Condon and Breckinridge both agreed that another advertisement had to be posted. They disagreed, however, on what it should read. Condon wanted some as-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 67 |

This page (front) and overleaf (back): This is the letter that Condon received on march 21, 1932.

surance that the baby was alive and well. Breckinridge, following instructions from lindbergh, wanted to print exactly what the kidnapper requested. The baby’s safety was much more important than capturing the kidnapper or losing some money. eventually, the men compromised. a new ad was written that would appear from march 22 until march 25: “thanKs. that little paCKaGe you sent me Was immediately deliVered and aCCepted as real artiCle.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 68 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

see my position. oVer 50 years in Business and Can i pay Without seeinG Goods? Common sense maKes me trust you. please understand my position. JaFsie.”17 The next day, Condon’s daughter-in-law took him to the tuckahoe depot to meet with the woman he had met at the bazaar. The mysterious woman never appeared. several newspapers reported that Condon met with a woman at the platform. Condon denied this, saying the only woman at the depot was his daughter-in-law.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 69 |

The identity of the woman at the Bronx bazaar remains unknown. some steadfastly maintain that she was an agent of the kidnapper. Condon’s mention of an italian woman’s voice in the background of his phone conversation is often cited in support of this theory. others maintain that Condon fabricated the bazaar incident to justify his prior statements. neither theory seems logical. The notes from the kidnapper made no reference to this woman and were contrary to her statement. The woman wanted to meet on saturday in person while the ransom note received on Friday declared that no further communication would be forthcoming until the terms were accepted. if the woman was in league with the kidnapper, there should have been some similarity in their messages. more likely this woman was working with the local media in an attempt to confirm that Condon was Jafsie. The media had appeared at Condon’s house and knew about his $1,000 offering in the Bronx Home News. The article, along with the advertisements from Jafsie, must have aroused some suspicion among the local press. By sending a woman to Condon who spoke only of the advertisements without specifically mentioning the kidnapping, the press hoped that Condon might disclose his identity. such a statement would have made front-page news and jumpstarted the career of a young journalist. There is one more possibility. This woman might have read the article about Condon’s offer of a reward and decided, upon seeing him at the bazaar, to make fun of him. if the old man wanted to play detective, she would give him a wild goose to chase. The next two days brought no letters from the kidnapper. The papers were filled with stories about John Curtis and rev. dobson-peacock, who continued to claim that they were dealing with the real kidnappers and had lindbergh’s full support. These stories had to have made Cemetery John nervous. he had already written in his last two letters about the other investigation and that lindbergh was wasting time. These latest stories would further frustrate and anger him. Friday and saturday passed without further contact. it became obvious to Breckinridge and Condon that they would need to take the next step. They composed another advertisement that ran that day until monday, march 28, which read: “money is ready. Furnish simple Code For us to use in paper. JaFsie.”18 This ad prompted a quick response. on tuesday morning, march 29, Condon found a letter in his mailbox with the same handwriting, misspellings, and “singnature” symbol. dear sir. it is note necessary to furnish any code. you and mr. lindbergh know ouer program—very well. We will keep the child on ouer save plase until we

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 70 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

have the money in hand, but if the deal is note closed until the 8 of april we will ask for 30000 more. also note 70000 - 100000. how can mr lindbergh follow so many false clues he knows we are the right party ouer singnature is still the same as on the ransom note. But if mr. lindbergh likes to fool around for another month we can help it. once he hase to come to us anyway but if he keeps on waiting we will double ouer amound. There is absolute no fear about the child it is well19

Breckinridge was very upset by this letter and summoned lindbergh. lindbergh arrived a few hours later, sporting a disguise. he read the letter and was equally distressed. John was threatening to raise the ransom. While Condon still wanted to see the baby before making a payment, lindbergh and Breckinridge overruled him. They would follow the kidnapper’s demand to the letter. as a side note, the more significant part of this note is the statement that the baby is fine and not to worry. normally, a kidnapper turns up the heat by threatening the kidnap victim, not by raising the ransom demand. This statement demonstrates two things quite conclusively. First, the kidnapper was not an expert or a member of organized crime. second, the child was already dead. in response to the kidnapper’s letter, a new ad was written. it appeared initially on Thursday, march 31, reading: “i aCCept. money is ready. JaFsie.”20 The kidnapper responded immediately. Condon received a letter on the morning of Friday, april 1, with the same handwriting and familiar symbol. it had been mailed from the Fordham station. dear sir. have the money ready by saturday evening we will inform you where and how to deliver it. have the money in one bundle we want you to put it in on a sertain place. Ther is no fear that somebody els will take it, we watch everything closely. pleace tell us know if

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 71 |

you are agree and ready for action by saturday evening—if yes put in the paper yes everything o.k. it is a very simble delivery but we find out very sun if there is any trapp. after 8 houers you gett the adr. from

This is the ransom note that Condon received in which the kidnapper threatened to raise the ransom to $100,000.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 72 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

the boy, on the plase you fund two ladies. the are innocence.21

The bottom portion of the text was written around the symbol. There was an additional sentence on the reverse side.

This page (front) and facing page (back): This is a ransom note sent to dr. Condon on april 1, 1932, but intended for Charles lindbergh.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 73 |

if it is to late to put it in the new york american for saturday morning. put it in new york Journal.

This note is interesting in that “everything” is spelled correctly both times, but was clearly corrected by the writer. Considering that many of the complex words in the letter were spelled correctly while simple ones were not suggests that the writer was again using a German-english dictionary. he must have finally looked up “everything” and made the change.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 74 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This letter prompted the same argument as the others. Why could they not see the baby before making the payment? Why such a long delay? Before Condon and Breckinridge could start debating the matter, lindbergh ended the controversy by announcing that the instructions in the letter would be followed. an advertisement was composed that would appear in both publications mentioned by the kidnapper. The ad was exactly what the kidnapper requested: “yes. eVerythinG o.K. JaFsie.”22 now the money had to be prepared for delivery. lindbergh had sold more stock holdings to raise the full $70,000 demanded. he was adamant that there would be no police involvement when the exchange was made. Breckinridge and schwartzkopf repeatedly advised Colonel lindbergh to have the police secretly observe the transfer and then move in for a quick arrest. lindbergh was under the impression that his son was still alive and would do nothing that might place him in further danger. he did eventually agree to a plan proposed by internal revenue service agent elmer irey after he had examined the money lindbergh planned to use. irey explained that the united states planned to go off the gold standard in the near future. all gold certificates and coins would have to be surrendered when this occurred. Gold certificates looked like other paper currency, except for a yellow seal. They would be easy to spot once the kidnapper started spending them. irey also wanted the serial numbers of the bills recorded. These numbers would be useful to trace the bills. lindbergh initially refused. he felt that the kidnapper would live up to his promises and setting a trap might put his son in further harm. after speaking with mr. irey for a few minutes, lindbergh decided that irey’s suggestions should be followed. over the next eight hours, the money was taken from the vault, returned to the J. p. morgan company, and reassembled using gold certificates with the serial numbers recorded. The money was bundled into two packages. The first package contained $50,000, $36,000 of which were gold certificates. The denominations for the first bundle were exactly as specified by the kidnapper: $20,000 in twenties, $15,000 in tens, and $10,000 in fives. The second package contained $20,000 all in $50 gold certificates, four hundred in total. The two bundles of money were taken by Charles lindbergh to Condon’s home on decatur street. Condon retrieved the box he had had constructed to store the money. When lindbergh tried to put the second package into the box, the side split. only $50,000 would fit, so the second package was held separately. The money was now ready. While elmer irey and his fellow agents were reassembling the money, an important discovery was being made at the lindbergh estate. Betty Gow and elsie Whateley were walking along the driveway. They spoke with one of the state troopers at the entrance gate and turned back toward the house. They had walked this driveway numerous times in the past month without

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Negotiations Continue

--

/355348t

| 75 |

incident. This day, the women noticed something on the road. Betty picked up the object and realized it was one of the missing baby’s thumb guards. she excitedly brought it to the house, thinking it was a sign of good things to come. The discovery of this thumb guard is extremely important. until this point, the police had theorized that the kidnapper had left the lindberghs’ home with the child and ran in a southeast direction to a waiting car. This conclusion was based upon the footprints and tire marks found by the police. as noted earlier, the footprints and tire marks are highly questionable and likely belonged to reporters or state troopers and not the kidnapper. The finding of the thumb guard clinches this theory. it was found along the extended driveway in a completely different direction from the house. if the kidnapper had followed the path theorized by the police, the thumb guard would never have gotten to where it was eventually found. The evidence suggests that the kidnapper left the premises after stuffing the child in a burlap sack and running down the main driveway, not to the southeast as commonly believed. When he had run most of the way up the driveway, he stopped to check on the child. discovering that the baby was dead, he yanked the sleeping suit off the child and inadvertently dropped the thumb guard. it remained on the driveway until it was found by Betty Gow. many wonder why the guard was not found earlier. There is only one logical conclusion. When it was found, the thumb guard was crushed flat and not usable.23 Furthermore, it was tied in the same manner that Betty Gow described when she put the boy to bed that fateful evening. Considering it was found in the dirt road driveway, it would seem that the guard was crushed on the night of the kidnapping by the numerous cars that arrived at the estate. once pressed into the ground, it was difficult to see and was not discovered until nearly a month later. moreover, since the authorities mistakenly believed that the kidnapper had escaped to the southeast, there was less of a need to thoroughly process this area of the driveway.24

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 76 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 8 |

double-Crossed

The kidnapper’s instructions were followed to the letter. The requested advertisement appeared on schedule and the money was collected. it was up to the kidnapper to make the next move. on saturday, april 2, lindbergh, Breckinridge, and John Condon spent the afternoon and evening waiting for word from the kidnapper. The most recent note said that the money had to be ready by saturday. This suggested that the kidnapper intended to make the exchange that night. The men decided that lindbergh and Condon would make the delivery using al reich’s car. since reich’s car had been used for the first meeting, they thought that the kidnapper might become suspicious if a different car was used. around eight o’clock that evening, while the three men were talking in Condon’s living room, the doorbell rang. Condon’s daughter, myra Condon hacker, opened the door with her father right behind her. a cab driver was walking down the steps, having just a left a note. Condon hurriedly opened the note, but paid no attention to the departing man. The identity of this cab driver has never been determined. myra testified later that this unknown driver was around five feet seven inches tall and had a dark complexion. other than this vague description, there is nothing else known of this man. Condon was too excited about the note to ask the man to come in and get his name. it certainly would be interesting to know exactly how the cab driver received this note and whether he could have identified the person who gave it to him. nevertheless, using a cab driver to deliver a note is consistent with the kidnapper’s prior acts. as Condon walked into the living room, he tore open the envelope. inside was a one-page note with the kidnapper’s “singnature.” he read the note aloud. dear sir: take a car and follow tremont ave to the east until you reach the number 3225 east tremont ave.

| 76 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Double-Crossed

/355348t

| 77 |

it is a nursery. Bergen Greenhausen florist There is a table standing outside right on the door, you find a letter undernead the table covert with a stone, read and follow instruction.1

Condon turned the letter over and continued reading: don’t speak to anyone on the way. if there is a ratio alarm for polisecar, we warn you. we have the same epuipment. have the money in one bundle. we give you ¾ of a houer to reach the plase.2

immediately after reading the note, Condon retrieved the ballot box and the separate package of money while lindbergh got the car keys. The two men drove off to meet the kidnapper, hoping to return with the missing boy. as they drove, Condon happened to glance down at lindbergh’s lapel and noticed the black steel of a revolver in a shoulder holster.3 a short while later, the two men drove up east tremont avenue and approached the Bergen Greenhouses. The first meeting with the kidnapper took place at a cemetery. it now became clear that the second meeting would take place at a cemetery as well. across the street loomed the cold darkness of st. raymond’s Cemetery. after lindbergh turned the car around, Condon left the vehicle and quickly walked onto the porch. The table mentioned in the kidnapper’s note was on the far right side of the porch. Beneath the table, there was a note held down by a rock. Condon grabbed the note and returned to the car so he could use the dashboard lights to read it. The letter had the “singnature” symbol and was clearly written by the kidnapper. cross the street and walk to the next corner and follow Whittemore ave to the soud

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 78 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

take the money with you. come alone and walk i will meet you4

lindbergh announced that he was coming along, but Condon objected, pointing out that the kidnapper’s note had insisted that he come alone. lindbergh agreed

This page (front) and facing page (back): This is the ransom note delivered to dr. Condon at his home by a cab driver who has, unfortunately, never been identified.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Double-Crossed

--

/355348t

| 79 |

and handed him the ballot box. Condon declined, saying he would return for the money after he met with the kidnapper and then stepped out of the car. While Condon was standing there, lindbergh saw a man walk by with a hat pulled over his eyes. as he passed the car, he covered the lower part of his face with a handkerchief and glanced at the men before walking down the road. lindbergh later described the man as standing around five feet eight inches tall and weighing between 150 and 160 pounds. he wore a brown suit and brown felt hat with no top coat. lindbergh could give no further description other than noting that the man was less than fifty years old.5

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 80 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This is the ransom note left for dr. Condon on a table at a greenhouse. it was held down by a stone.

a few minutes later, Condon walked to the corner of east tremont and Whittemore avenue and spotted a man and a young girl. he spoke briefly with them, but quickly determined they had nothing to do with the kidnapper.6 Glancing down Whittemore avenue, Condon did not like what he saw. The dirt road was dark, and there were numerous places where the kidnapper could ambush

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Double-Crossed

| 81 |

him, so he started walking back toward lindbergh and the car. he almost reached the car when a heavily accented voice yelled out, “ay doctor!!”7 Condon immediately replied, “all right!” “over here! over here!” the man repeated. Condon walked quickly to Whittemore avenue and turned down the dirt road. The man walked parallel to Condon, among the tombstones. about one hundred feet to the south was a small access road that entered the cemetery. The man who called to Condon scaled a small fence and crouched behind some hedges. Condon carefully approached. The Man: have you gotted the money? Condon: yes, it is in the car. The Man: Who is in the car? Condon: Colonel lindbergh. The Man: is Colonel lindbergh alone? Condon: yes, i said i would come alone and i always keep my word. The Man: have you got the $70,000? Condon: Where did you see me before? The Man: don’t you remember at the cemetery? Condon: Well, stand up and let me see you. The Man: all right.

The man complied and stood up, making no effort to conceal his face. he was wearing a dark suit and matching hat with a snap brim. Condon recognized him as Cemetery John. Condon: look here. The Colonel has lost a lot of money and you know it is a time of depression. Besides, you told me that $50,000 would restore the baby when you sent me the sleeping suit. John: did the Colonel say it was his son’s sleeping suit? Condon: yes, but times are so hard that he will find it a great hardship. John: Well, i suppose that we will be satisfied to take the $50,000 and in six hours i will send you a note telling where the baby is. Condon: i could not do that. let me go as hostage to where the baby is and i shall stay until you are sure of the money. John: my father won’t let me. Condon: Give me the note of directions and i will carry the money to you. John: yes, it will take me about ten minutes to get the note. Condon: i will go up, tell the Colonel, and get the money for you.8

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 82 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

John stood up and disappeared among the tombstones. Condon checked his watch and walked back to the car, where lindbergh was nervously waiting. he told him what had transpired and took the ballot box containing $50,000. he walked back to the hedge and waited. John returned a few minutes later. Condon again checked his watch. John had been gone thirteen minutes. “have you gottit it?” John asked. “yes, have you got the note?” Condon answered. John nodded and showed him an envelope. Condon handed the ballot box to John over the hedge with his left hand and took a sealed envelope with his right hand. he stuffed the envelope into his breast pocket while John examined the box and put some of the money in his pocket. “your work has been perfect,” John exclaimed. While John examined the money, he warned Condon not to open the envelope for six hours. The doctor told John that he would not betray his confidence. he would give the note to Colonel lindbergh and wait six hours as directed. according to Condon’s book, the two men shook hands like gentlemen and John disappeared into the darkness of the cemetery with $50,000. This is highly doubtful. a man who has just extorted $50,000 in a cemetery in the dead of night is not going to stick around to shake hands. more likely, once he got the money, he took off immediately. Jafsie’s version is the kind of embellishment and exaggeration that has caused many to disregard everything he reported. despite his tendency to exaggerate and promote himself, John Condon was basically an honest man who liked fame. While he would not lie about something important, he would not hesitate to alter certain details, especially things he supposedly said, so as to make himself seem courageous and chivalrous. For example, Condon later reported that he told Cemetery John he would track him to australia if he double-crossed him.9 This embellishment was obviously designed to portray Condon bravely confronting the kidnapper. to get to the truth of the actual incident, one has to peel away the layers of self-promotion and exaggeration. during the exchange, Colonel lindbergh waited in the car. about fifteen minutes after Condon left with the money, a man appeared on the cemetery side of east tremont and ran toward Whittemore avenue. he stopped at Whittemore avenue and glanced down the road. he then crossed tremont and passed the car on the other side of the street. as he passed the car, he covered his face with a handkerchief and blew his nose.10 This was the same man lindbergh had seen minutes before with the brown suit and felt hat.11 at this point, lindbergh noticed dr. Condon walking down Whittemore away from the cemetery. he looked back at the man and saw him drop the handkerchief on the sidewalk before he disappeared.12 The question asked over the years is whether the man lindbergh saw was the kidnapper, an accomplice, or an innocent bystander.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Double-Crossed

--

/355348t

| 83 |

Claims that the man was a coconspirator seem baseless. The man simply walked by and looked at Condon and lindbergh. he did not speak with them or do anything to alert coconspirators. some allege that blowing his nose was a signal to his accomplice in the cemetery. By this point, the transaction between Condon and Cemetery John was complete and the act would have been meaningless. The man lindbergh saw was about five feet eight inches tall and weighed between 150 and 160 pounds. he wore a brown suit and a brown felt hat. Condon described Cemetery John as standing about five feet nine inches tall and weighing approximately 160 pounds. at st. raymond’s Cemetery, the kidnapper wore a dark suit and a felt hat with a snap-down brim.13 The only real difference was that the man lindbergh saw had a “dark complexion.”14 These descriptions of height, weight, and clothing are so similar that one might conclude that they were the same man. This is possible, but very unlikely. if the man lindbergh saw was Cemetery John, then the ballot box used to transfer the ransom money must have been hidden somewhere in the cemetery because the box was too large to slip under a coat or jacket and lindbergh never saw the man carrying it when he walked by. For the man on east tremont avenue to be Cemetery John, the following must have happened. Cemetery John was seen heading toward Westchester Creek and away from east tremont with the money box before Condon lost sight of him. Before Condon walked from the cemetery gate down Whittemore and then left down east tremont, John would have had to dispose of the box (likely in a hole dug earlier in the evening), covered or buried it, marked it for later retrieval, and then reversed course and scaled the barrier on to east tremont avenue. all of this would have to be done, as well as the actions observed by Colonel lindbergh, before Condon returned to the car. Granted, Condon may very well have waited a minute or two before heading back to the car. still, it is extremely improbable that Cemetery John could have done all these things in so little time. it is also hard to believe he would even try. it makes no sense that a man, having just received $50,000 in ransom money, would bury or hide it in a cemetery and then walk right by the father of the missing boy. once the man with the handkerchief was gone and Condon had returned to the car, lindbergh turned his full attention back to Jafsie. “Where is the baby?” lindbergh asked. Condon handed the anxious father the envelope from the kidnapper and explained his promise to wait six hours. to his surprise, lindbergh put the envelope in his coat pocket and started the car. “We’ll keep our end of the bargain,” lindbergh said quietly. he then started toward Jafsie’s home. Condon directed lindbergh to a small house he owned in Westchester square, which was about a mile west of the cemetery. on the stoop of that vacant house, the two men decided it would be wiser to open the letter immediately.15

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 84 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Many question why Lindbergh did not open the note as soon as he received it. Certainly, they argue, a father whose child is missing would tear open the note right away. However, Lindbergh’s actions were absolutely appropriate. He did not know whether the kidnapper or an accomplice was watching them. If they were being watched, the kidnapper might become angry if they did not appear to follow his instructions to the letter. Once away from the cemetery, they picked a nearby place to read the letter. Lindbergh ripped open the envelope and quickly read the letter inside. It was written in similar handwriting, but did not have the ransom symbol. the boy is on Boad Nelly it is a small Boad 28 feet long two person are on the Boad. the are innosent. you will find the Boad between Horseneck Beach and Gay Head near Elizabeth Island.16

This is the final ransom note. It was handed to John Condon by Cemetery John in exchange for a box containing $50,000.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Double-Crossed

--

/355348t

| 85 |

as Condon and lindbergh returned to decatur street, they were very upbeat. For the first time since the kidnapping, it looked as if the child was going to come home. What Condon and lindbergh did not know is that part of the evening’s adventure had been observed by a new york City police captain. on the night the ransom was to be paid, police Commissioner edward p. mulrooney issued an order that no detective was to be north of 125th street and the harlem river.17 Capt. richard oliver, who was very familiar with the lindbergh case because he was the direct supervisor of lieutenant Finn, the officer in charge of the new york police department’s investigation, properly concluded that the ransom was to be paid and planned to be there to capture the criminal. oliver believed that Cemetery John was a member of a cheap gang who either kidnapped the child or had somehow obtained the secret ransom letter symbol and was trying to extort money from Colonel lindbergh.18 if he found John alone, oliver intended to either grab him or go with him back to the other members posing as a member of another gang.19 That evening, oliver set up surveillance of dr. Condon’s home from his car. he was dressed in plain clothes.20 When Condon and lindbergh drove off to Bergen’s Florist and ultimately the cemetery, oliver followed them. he observed Jafsie leave lindbergh in the car and followed his movements until Condon entered the cemetery.21 as oliver was about to enter the cemetery, he got cold feet. if the baby was dead, as he believed, he could make the arrest and be a national hero. on the other hand, if the child was alive and his actions caused the kidnapper to panic and murder the baby, he would become a national disgrace, lose his job, and forever live in infamy. oliver chose not to risk his career. he quickly returned to his car and went home.22

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 86 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 9 |

The Wild-Goose Chase

after returning to decatur street, lindbergh and Breckinridge conferred and made several phone calls. Condon sat in the living room with his wife and daughter, discussing his night’s adventure. he had just finished his tale when lindbergh returned to the room. he announced that he needed to leave, but wanted Condon and al reich to accompany him. The men agreed, drove downtown, and eventually arrived at a townhouse owned by lindbergh’s mother-in-law. once inside, they were escorted to a library, where several men, including elmer irey and Frank Wilson from the internal revenue service, were waiting. lindbergh and Breckinridge went to another room to talk while irey questioned Condon about his two meetings with Cemetery John. during this conversation, Condon gave a physical description of John to a sketch artist. he described John as five feet nine to five feet ten and 165 pounds with a triangular face and high cheekbones. When the sketch artist was finished, Condon stated that the drawing was an exact likeness of John. The men then brought out a large map of the Bronx showing both st. raymond’s and Woodlawn cemeteries. Condon reviewed the map and showed everyone where he had encountered John and in which direction he had left after the money was exchanged for the sealed envelope revealing the location of the baby. Condon noted that John had stepped on a fresh grave with his left foot. irey asked if Condon could remember the exact spot so they could look for a footprint. Condon was certain he could do so. as irey continued to question Condon, the doctor proudly boasted that he had saved Colonel lindbergh $20,000. irey paused for a moment and asked Condon to repeat himself. Condon could see that the man was concerned. he repeated his boast and asked if he had done something wrong. irey explained that the separate package with the extra $20,000 contained four hundred gold certificates in $50 denominations. Fifty-dollar gold certificates were not common and would attract the attention of clerks or bank tellers. twenty-dollar gold certificates and lower denominations were much more common. The fifties | 86 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Wild-Goose Chase

--

/355348t

| 87 |

The police composite sketch based upon the description of Cemetery John by John Condon and by witnesses who saw a man passing lindbergh ransom money. The likeness to Bruno richard hauptmann is striking.

would be the easiest to trace. The second package had been specially prepared by the treasury department for this purpose. By talking the kidnapper out of taking the extra $20,000, Condon had ruined the plan. irey could see that Condon was upset and tried to reassure him. nobody had taken the time to tell him about the importance of the second package. Condon thought he was helping lindbergh by saving him $20,000, but instead seriously hindered the investigation.1 irey was still talking with Condon when lindbergh entered the room with Breckinridge and two other men. he announced that they were leaving for an airport in Connecticut to search for his son. lindbergh, accompanied by Breckinridge, Condon, and al reich, drove to the airport. They arrived around 4 a.m., and lindbergh asked reich to drive his car to a country club in long island so they would have transportation when the plane landed. reich agreed and departed.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 88 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

lindbergh had made arrangements with the united states navy to borrow a plane suitable for their search. around 5 a.m., a sikorsky, which is a large amphibious plane, landed on the strip. lindbergh inspected the plane and found it satisfactory. This plane had the ability to land in the water, which would be essential in order to board Nelly and retrieve his son. after refueling the craft, lindbergh took off with Colonel Breckinridge, elmer irey, and John Condon in search of the baby. lindbergh flew east over Connecticut and then turned north. soon they were over martha’s Vineyard near elizabeth island. Throughout the morning, lindbergh searched the area along with Coast Guard cutters and a navy warship. his plane was observed during the day searching the area and occasionally flying alongside fishing boats only a few feet above the water before accelerating and rising back into the sky. Word of lindbergh’s flight reached reporters in the nearby cities of Boston, providence, and Bridgeport. They immediately guessed that he was looking for his son. after six hours of searching, lindbergh landed the plane just off the coast of Cuttyhunk island. he taxied the craft to the docks, where reporters were gathered, ready to assail him with questions. The men pushed their way past the reporters to a small hotel on the island, where they had lunch. Colonel Breckinridge did his best to quiet the members of the press and assure them that there was nothing new to report. Condon and the others ate heartily while lindbergh barely touched his food. Though lindbergh had been excited about finding his son the evening before, his mood was now sullen and quiet as he thought of the possibility that he had been double-crossed. after lunch, the men resumed their search for the boat Nelly. The search lasted until dark, but they did not find any boat resembling John’s description. Throughout the afternoon, little was said. Finally, lindbergh turned the plane toward new york as the passengers sadly acknowledged to themselves that the story of the boat Nelly was a lie. as promised, al reich met the men at the long island airport. They got in the car, and lindbergh drove them to new york City. The silence was deafening and palpable. Condon and reich were dropped off at an uptown subway station and irey and Breckinridge at a house in manhattan. lindbergh then headed home, alone with his thoughts and facing the unpleasant prospect of telling his wife that he had not recovered their son. The following day, lindbergh used his own plane to search for the boat Nelly and his missing son. his search was so exhaustive that he went as far south as Virginia. once again, lindbergh returned to the sourland estate without his son. John Condon was busy this day as well. he went back to st. raymond’s Cemetery with his son-in-law, ralph hacker, and special agent sisk of the Federal Bureau of investigation. Condon found the fresh grave where John had stepped. There was a clear footprint visible. hacker and sisk took a plaster impression.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Wild-Goose Chase

--

/355348t

| 89 |

This plaster cast of the footprint was never introduced during the trial. it is not in the custody of the new Jersey state police, and if the FBi still has it or knows where it is, it has not revealed it. Writers have stated that the print must exonerate hauptmann because it has never been revealed. This is pure speculation. The plaster impression could have been lost or accidentally broken. We also cannot be certain if this footprint was really that of the kidnapper. as it was a fresh grave, it could have belonged to one of the grave diggers or to a mourner who visited the grave. That evening, Colonel Breckinridge called lindbergh from Condon’s home. They agreed that it was too early to concede that they had been double-crossed. it was possible that the kidnapper might contact Condon again. They decided to post another advertisement in the Bronx Home News over the next two weeks. The advertisement was prepared, and Condon phoned it into the Bronx Home News that evening. appearing for the first time the following day, it read: “What is WronG? haVe you Crossed me? please, Better direCtions. JaFsie.”2 lindbergh spent the next day continuing his search for his son while h. norman schwartzkopf responded to rumors and questions from the press. he repeatedly insisted that lindbergh was home at his estate, even though several reporters saw him at various locations. it was necessary to lie to the press. if lindbergh’s real location or destination was revealed, the press would have swarmed him and frustrated his efforts. Condon remained at home. he was hoping the kidnappers might contact him either through the mail or by phone as they had previously done. Colonel Breckinridge spent the evening at Condon’s home, but there was no contact from the elusive kidnapper. on Wednesday, april 6, a pamphlet was issued by the united states treasury department containing the serial numbers of the ransom money given to Cemetery John. These pamphlets were sent to banks and other financial institutions in the hope that a teller might come across one of the notes and lead to the capture of the kidnapper. however, the authorities realized that most of the bills would not be noticed because of the tremendous amount of money bank tellers handle on a daily basis. While no mention was made of the lindbergh case in the pamphlet, it was not difficult for the press to make the connection. Based on a tip from a bank teller in new Jersey, the Newark News published an article on april 8 announcing that the lindberghs had paid a ransom and the child had not been returned. Within a few hours, the story was in every major newspaper in the country. lindbergh was furious. With the papers reporting the serial numbers of the ransom money, it would be nearly impossible to establish further contact with the kidnapper. With little alternative, he prepared a statement for the press that was read on every radio network on the night of april 9 by Colonel schwartzkopf: Colonel lindbergh has authorized a statement that a ransom of fifty thousand dollars was paid to the kidnappers—properly identified as such—upon their

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 90 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

agreement to notify him as to the exact whereabouts of the baby. The baby was not found at the point designated. several days were permitted to elapse to give the kidnappers every opportunity to keep their agreement. it was not intended to use the numbers on the specie in which the ransom was paid, but inasmuch as the kidnappers have failed to keep their agreement and have not communicated since the ransom was paid, it is felt that every remaining possible means must be utilized to accomplish the return of the baby, and to this end, the cooperation of the federal government was requested in tracing the bills used.3

Various news stories appeared over the next two days. most contained wild and fanciful rumors with little basis in fact or reality. of greater importance to the lindberghs, there was still no contact from the kidnapper. on the following monday, John Condon was publicly unmasked as the mysterious Jafsie. exactly how his identity was uncovered is not clear. some authors insist that the story was broken by the Bronx Home News and the New York Times with Condon’s consent and permission.4 others, including Jafsie himself, tell a story of a young man who had read some of Condon’s poetry, which was signed “J. F. C.” and simply made the connection.5 There is even one author who alleges that lindbergh himself revealed Jafsie’s identity.6 previously several papers had suspected that Condon was Jafsie, but now his identity was confirmed.7 reporters swarmed Condon’s property. They continually rang his bell and knocked on his door. They trampled his flower beds, peeked in his windows, and camped on his porch and front walk for hours. Whenever the front door opened, flashbulbs popped, and reporters shouted questions and accusations. Condon described the scene as a “roman holiday.”8 major newspapers made numerous offers for his inside story. to Condon’s credit, he rejected all of these offers even though they would have made him quite wealthy. to try to calm the mob, Condon agreed to a press conference. he started by announcing that he was not able to discuss most of the case. he did say that he felt the kidnapper would contact him again. it was Condon’s belief that the kidnapper had not returned the child because there was too large a naval presence at the rendezvous point.9 Condon’s usefulness as an intermediary was quickly being destroyed by the frenzy of media attention. lindbergh met with Colonel schwartzkopf and members of the new york state police to address the problem. it was agreed that the editors and news representatives would be contacted in the hope that they would back away from Condon. initially, a deal was reached and the reporters left the vicinity of Condon’s home. a few days later, after one of the major newspapers broke the deal, the reporters returned in great numbers.10 Condon reported a slightly different version of the siege. he wrote that a drunken reporter tore down his american flag from his veranda. This enraged the doctor, and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Wild-Goose Chase

--

/355348t

| 91 |

he punched the reporter in the right eye. The reporter was knocked down and fell into a rosebush. The other reporters were intimidated by dr. Condon and never again came closer than the sidewalk to his house.11 Considering the despicable behavior of the press throughout this case, it is highly unlikely that a single punch—assuming that Condon actually threw a punch—would deter them from interviewing the only man who actually saw the kidnapper. it was not just the media who harassed Condon. people phoned him at all hours of the day and night until he changed his number to an unlisted one. he also received over two thousand pieces of mail in a matter of days.12 some of the correspondence thanked him for helping lindbergh and offered encouragement. others gave tips or advice on how to solve the case. The worst was the hate mail. many people accused Condon of being in league with the kidnapper or scheming to defraud Charles lindbergh. one of the letters read: “enclosed you will find a picture of ‘John,’ the kidnapper.” The enclosure was a mirror.13 While lindbergh and Condon battled with the media, the new Jersey state police continued their investigation. pressure was mounting on them to solve this case. The baby had not been found, dead or alive, and there were few clues to work with. now it was public knowledge that the kidnapper had swindled lindbergh and not returned the child. There was a loose end that Colonel schwartzkopf wanted to examine. Violet sharp, the maid for mrs. lindbergh’s parents, had been evasive in her answers. she was also extremely nervous. perhaps she knew something. schwartzkopf sent his friend, insp. harry Walsh, to the morrow estate in englewood on april 13 to question her again. The interview started innocently enough as Violet answered simple questions about her family and professional history. When the questioning turned to Violet’s activities on the night of the kidnapping, her story and demeanor changed dramatically. previously, Violet told the police that she had gone to the movies with a man and another couple, and returned home around eleven o’clock. she did not remember the name of the movie, the theater, or even the name of her date. now Violet remembered that her date’s name was ernie. They had met on February 28 as she had previously stated. however, they did not go to a movie. instead, the four went to a roadhouse called the peanut Grill, located “in one of the oranges.”14 inspector Walsh questioned why a respectable woman like Violet would go to a speakeasy with three total strangers. This question angered Violet as she felt the officer was questioning her respectability. she became defensive and emotional, but offered additional details to substantiate her story. The group stayed at the peanut Grill until approximately ten-thirty. They danced, talked, and generally had a good time. her date and the other couple drank beer while she drank only coffee.15 she was dropped off at the morrow estate around eleven. she

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 92 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

said she did not initially remember ernie’s name, but received a phone call from him on march 6 seeking another date. she declined, but took note of his name. inspector Walsh asked Violet to describe her date and the other couple. she described ernie as tall and thin with fair hair and complexion. he was wearing a gray overcoat and hat and a navy blue suit. she estimated his age at around twenty-four.16 The other man was about the same age, but shorter and with blond hair. he wore a gray felt hat and a dark overcoat. The other woman was in her early twenties. she was attractive with a dark complexion and wore a navy blue outfit with black shoes and a black hat.17 later, Walsh discussed the interview with his superiors. since it was well known that Violet was dating septimus Banks, the morrow’s butler, and that mr. Banks was considering marriage, the officers found it difficult to believe that she would drive off with three strangers to a roadhouse. This was especially so since the other servants had provided statements that Violet had never dated anyone other than septimus.18 There was another wrinkle as well. sharp’s sister emily had left the country for england only days after the payment of the ransom. Worse still, emily failed to tell the police of her travel plans when questioned. Because of these discrepancies and concerns, it was decided that sharp would have to be questioned again. it would have to be done carefully because mrs. morrow had complete confidence in the young girl, and it would be unwise to upset the widow of a former united states ambassador. as lindbergh was unable to use dr. Condon as an intermediary, he turned to John Curtis and his norfolk connection. lindbergh did not really believe Curtis had actually contacted the kidnapper. however, with all other leads drying up, he felt he had no other alternative.19 on april 18, 1932, lindbergh met with John Curtis and his associate, edwin Bruce, at the sourland estate. There, in lindbergh’s den, along with three members of the new Jersey state police, Curtis told a wild tale about his dealings with the kidnappers. Curtis was taken into confidence by the kidnap gang and met with them in a home in southern new Jersey. The leader of the gang was a scandinavian man named John. he was the same man who met with Condon in Woodlawn and st. raymond cemeteries.20 included in the gang were three scandinavian men and a German nurse.21 The men were supposedly named eric, nils, and George olaf larsen, nicknamed “dynamite.”22 Curtis claimed that John explained to him how the kidnapping was accomplished. They received information about the house from one of the servants, and the kidnappers did surveillance on two or three occasions.23 two men climbed the ladder, chloroformed the child, and carried him down the stairs and out the front door. The ransom notes were written by the German nurse.24 Curtis further added that he did not initially trust the gang members. When he asked for proof of their story, John spread money on the table. Curtis compared the serial numbers and determined them to be authentic.25

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Wild-Goose Chase

--

/355348t

| 93 |

to further cement the story, Curtis claimed that John met with John Condon, intending to extort extra money and then deliver the baby through Curtis after a second payment of $25,000. meanwhile, the baby was being kept on a boat.26 schwartzkopf and the other officers were certain Curtis was lying or being duped by a group of con artists. They were surprised when lindbergh agreed to another meeting with Curtis at a hotel in the village of Cape may Court house. Curtis would stay at a nearby hotel called The prince George. The following day, lindbergh, along with edwin Bruce and a lieutenant from the norfolk naval air station, drove to the hotel and booked a room. They would not hear from Curtis until after midnight. When Curtis arrived at the hotel, he had new information from the kidnappers. They wanted to meet with Colonel lindbergh on board a boat owned by larsen. however, they would do so only on two conditions. First, there could be no Coast Guard activity. second, once the second ransom payment was made, the serial numbers would not be published.27 lindbergh agreed without reservation. The following morning, Curtis returned to lindbergh’s room with an even more fantastic story. he had met with the kidnappers yet again. he had been picked up at his hotel by two women in a Ford. They drove to the shore and boarded a schooner, which was painted white with a green hull. on board, the kidnappers told Curtis they intended to make a switch of ransom money for the child on Thursday. The switch would be made on a boat, and they would call Curtis shortly with the rendezvous location. lindbergh returned to the sourland estate and made preparations for the use of a boat. Curtis returned to his hotel and waited for further instructions. The following day, lindbergh, Curtis, Bruce, and naval officers were sailing in a small rented ship off the coast of Block island. Curtis supposedly received a phone call during the night advising him of this location. Throughout the day, the men waited, seeing only occasional fishing boats. When they finally gave up for the day without any contact from the so-called gang, Curtis surmised that the few fishing boats in the vicinity that day must have scared off the kidnappers. not surprisingly, Curtis returned to lindbergh the following day with another story. hilda, the German nurse from the gang, had called him the previous evening. as Curtis had predicted, the kidnappers were intimidated by the fishing boats and had called off the deal, thinking there was a trap. new instructions were given. lindbergh was to sail twenty miles due east from the Chesapeake lighthouse in Virginia. The exchange would be made there on board a ship called Mary Moss. a friend of Curtis advised that lindbergh could have the use of his yacht for as long as he needed. so the following day, the men sailed to the designated location off the Virginia coast and waited. once again, no contact was made. over the next fifteen days, lindbergh sailed up and down the east coast of the united states in search of the Mary Moss. each day, Curtis provided new information

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 94 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

and a location for the transfer. each time, no contact was made, and Curtis would make an excuse and return to shore to contact the kidnappers. he returned every morning with a new story and a new plan. What lindbergh did not know was that each time Curtis left to contact the gang, he was really negotiating with several new york City newspapers for the rights to his inside story. The newspapers wanted pictures of the child to back his claim, while Curtis wanted lots of money up front.28 This cat-and-mouse game continued until may 12, 1932. on that day, Curtis was in new york City while lindbergh waited on board the yacht. The weather was poor, and they were unable to sail. That evening, edwin Bruce and lt. George richard boarded the ship. They had received a coded message from Colonel schwartzkopf with instructions to personally deliver it to lindbergh. When lindbergh greeted the men, he knew something was wrong. sensing what their message might be, he turned away and faced the sea. lieutenant richard, speaking softly, delivered the message. “Colonel, they have found your son.” he paused for a second and then continued, “he is dead, sir.”29

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 10 |

“i am perfectly satisfied That it is my Child”

on the afternoon of may 12, 1932, at approximately 3:15 p.m., orville Wilson and William allen were driving in mount rose on a small road that connected hopewell and princeton, delivering a load of timbers. Wilson pulled over to the side of the road because allen needed to relieve himself.1 allen walked about fifty to seventy-five feet into the woods bordering the road. he ducked his head to avoid a bush and stopped dead in his tracks. peeking out of the dirt, leaves, and brush was a small skull. he bent closer to get a better look and saw a small foot as well.2 Wilson was still in the driver’s seat of the truck when allen came running out of the woods, clearly frightened. he jumped out of the truck and allen told him of the grisly find. Wilson followed allen to the grave site to look for himself. on closer inspection, the men noticed clumps of blond hair on the skull and tattered clothing on the body. a large portion of the body had been eaten by animals and scavengers. The body was lying on its side and the portion of the face they could see was black and badly decomposed. it has been widely reported that the child was completely facedown in his grave. however, Walter h. swayze, the hunterdon County coroner, who took the remains from the grave site, reported in an interview of december 19, 1977, that the child was lying on his side with part of his face preserved in the mud.3 This fact was confirmed by John Conlon, a nineteen-year-old assistant, who was present for the autopsy.4 agreeing not to touch the body, allen and Wilson hurried back to their truck and drove off in search of Constable Williamson. They found him at the barbershop. he was all smiles until the men told him of their find. The three men ran to the township police station and informed Chief harry Wolfe. Wolfe, in turn, contacted Colonel schwartzkopf, excitedly reporting that they may have found the lindbergh baby. Within minutes, det. James Fitzgerald of the Jersey City police and sgt. andrew Zapolsky of the new Jersey state police arrived at the station. They listened impatiently as William allen repeated his story for the fourth time. anxious to get to the grave site, Zapolsky asked allen to show them the location. | 95 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 96 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The remains of the lindbergh baby at the scene after being turned over by police.

By 3:45 p.m., lieutenant Keaten, inspector Walsh, Frank Kelly, and det. robert Coar had joined Zapolsky and Fitzgerald at the site of the corpse. after Kelly took photographs, Zapolsky turned the corpse over to examine the remainder of the face. The portion of the body that was open and exposed was in terrible condition. Both hands were gone and only one foot remained. The skin was black and hardened. however, the portion of the face pressed into the ground was in much better condition. The eye still retained its blue color and the forehead, nose, and chin were intact, including the famous dimple.5 using a photograph of the child and comparing it to the preserved portion of the face, Zapolsky, Walsh, and Keaten were able to make a positive identification.6 They had indeed located the remains of Charles lindbergh Jr. Before the officers were ready to announce their discovery to the world, they decided to double-check their identification. small pieces of clothing still clung to the corpse, which could be identified. inspector Walsh and another officer left the scene for the sourland estate while the other officers continued to guard the corpse. once at the estate, the men sought out Betty Gow because she had dressed the child for bed on the night of the kidnapping. Betty Gow told the officers that she had dressed the child in a woolen undershirt and a nightshirt, which she made out of an old piece of flannel and blue thread she

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“I Am Perfectly Satisfied That It Is My Child”

/355348t

| 97 |

borrowed from elsie Whateley. at the officers’ request, she produced a sample of both the flannel and the blue thread. When they finished the interview, the officers reported to Colonel schwartzkopf to give their findings. intrigued, schwartzkopf accompanied the men to the grave site and, after a careful inspection of the corpse, ordered inspector Walsh to remove the clothing from the body. Walsh used a stick to carefully lift the body. unfortunately, the stick slipped and penetrated the soft and decaying skull, leaving a small pencil-sized hole.7 This mistake would later be used by a private investigator employed by Governor hoffman to support a theory that the child was shot in the head by a .25 caliber bullet.8 Without further incident, Walsh removed the nightshirt and undershirt from the body and compared them to the samples given by Betty Gow. The child’s undershirt had been taken from a package of ten. The label on the undershirt from the corpse matched.9 likewise, the nightshirt matched the flannel sample. in fact, the edges of the nightshirt and the sample fit together perfectly, leaving no doubt as to the identity of the child.10 Walsh also compared the blue thread with the remnants of thread from the nightshirt. They matched. soon after the two garments were removed, the county coroner, Walter h. swayze, was permitted to remove the body. swayze examined the grave site carefully before putting the corpse into a black body bag. he then took the body to the county morgue in trenton. When swayze had finished, the police began to scour the grave site and surrounding area. near the grave site, they found a burlap sack. inside the sack was more blond hair from the corpse. obviously, the child had been transported in this bag. What the police did not know was whether the child was already dead while in the sack. The police also raked the area around the body for evidence. They collected numerous barrels of leaves and dirt. From this debris, the police eventually found hair, a toenail, pieces of clothing, and six human bones. These bones would eventually be identified in a laboratory as the heel and metatarsal bones from a child nearly two years of age.11 The two shirts and the burlap bag were taken by Walsh and schwartzkopf, who returned to the lindbergh home with the unpleasant task of telling mrs. lindbergh of her child’s death. When they arrived, the men first met with Betty Gow. They showed her the dirty and wet shirts taken from the corpse. Betty held the garments in her trembling hands as she examined them. tears welled in her eyes as she identified the filthy garments. “Where did you find these?” she wailed.12 schwartzkopf had to tell her several times before she could accept the fact that the child was dead. Betty had really believed that the baby would be found by lindbergh and Curtis.13 schwartzkopf asked Betty not to say anything until mrs. lindbergh was told. shortly before five o’clock, schwartzkopf found mrs. morrow (anne’s mother)

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 98 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

and told her the terrible news. she took it calmly as she had always believed that the baby was dead.14 mrs. morrow and schwartzkopf went to the master bedroom to tell anne. as Colonel schwartzkopf stood quietly, anne’s mother broke the news: “The baby is with daddy.”15 as mrs. morrow held her daughter, schwartzkopf told anne the circumstances under which the body was found. he tried to comfort her by saying that it appeared the child had died on the night of the kidnapping without pain or suffering. seeing little response from anne, he quietly left the room.16 schwartzkopf started making arrangements to notify Colonel lindbergh. The news media would also have to be addressed as rumors of the discovery were already beginning to circulate. after sending a coded message to Charles lindbergh, he arranged for a press conference to be held at the lindberghs’ garage, which was serving as a temporary headquarters for the state police. By the time the press conference began at around 6:45 p.m., the news had already broken and was being broadcast nationwide. new Jersey Governor moore made a public statement on the matter shortly after six o’clock. Colonel schwartzkopf and several other state troopers entered the room and stood by a small podium. schwartzkopf read from a prepared text: “We have to announce that apparently the body of the lindbergh baby was found.”17 he paused for a moment, almost stunned by the terrible announcement he had just made. The silence was broken as the reporters sprang to their feet and headed for the door. schwartzkopf shouted for them to return to their seats. he was clearly agitated and insisted upon completing his statement before the press could leave. he spoke for the next several minutes, explaining how Wilson and allen discovered the child and the methods used to make the preliminary identification. he concluded his remarks by announcing that the child’s body was in the custody of the mercer County coroner.18 schwartzkopf refused to answer any questions and permitted the reporters to leave and report their stories. a few hours later, two detectives brought Betty Gow to the funeral parlor of Walter swayze to examine and hopefully identify the remains. she was extremely nervous and trembled when she entered the room. she tried to remain strong, but was unprepared for the horrible sight. When the sheet was lifted off the corpse, she gasped and turned away. after taking a moment to regain her composure, she forced herself to look at the body and do a careful examination. The hair, protruding eyeteeth, and overlapping toes, as well as the facial resemblance, allowed her to make the identification before she was escorted from the room.19 over sixty years later, Gow would state, “There was absolutely no doubt this was my lindbergh baby.”20 after Betty left, dr. philip Van ingen, the child’s pediatrician, was brought to the funeral parlor to examine and identify the child. after a brief examination, dr. Van ingen made a tentative identification.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“I Am Perfectly Satisfied That It Is My Child”

/355348t

| 99 |

over the years, the question of whether Van ingen made an identification has been hotly debated. a highly questionable source quotes Van ingen as saying, “if someone were to come in here and offer me ten million dollars, i simply wouldn’t be able to identify the remains.”21 in an oral interview, taken on december 19, 1977, Walter swayze insisted that Van ingen identified the baby using the number of teeth, the deformity of toes in conjunction with medical reports from the treating doctor’s reports, and examination and measurement of the fontanel. in fact, swayze stated that Van ingen was more positive on the identification than he was.22 The archives contain a document, dated may 13, 1932, written in dr. Van ingen’s own handwriting. This document offers a final answer to this question. dr. Van ingen wrote: The body is that of a child of about 2 yrs.—The condition of the body is such that positive identification by me is impossible—the apparent length, the number of teeth, the general size of the head and the unclosed fontanelle [sic] conform to the facts obtained when the lindbergh baby was examined Feb. 18th—1932. The toes of the right foot overlap which was noted at that time.23

This document seems to make clear that dr. Van ingen could not make a thorough identification. however, his notes reveal that the corpse was consistent with his examination of the lindbergh baby three months prior and generally support the conclusion that the remains were that of the lindbergh baby. around 6:45 p.m., the official autopsy of the child began. present at the autopsy were: dr. Van ingen, dr. Walter swayze, dr. Charles mitchell (the mercer County coroner), and John Conlon, a nineteen-year-old assistant. The procedure started with visual observations of the corpse. The left leg from the knee down and the left hand were missing. a portion of the right forearm was missing. The abdominal organs were gone except for the liver, and the only thoracic organ left was the heart. The skin of the head, face, right foot, and a portion of the chest was discolored and decomposed.24 one side of the face was in much better condition. it had been downward in the mud and thus better preserved. Consequently, the facial muscles had not deteriorated as much as the rest of the body, and the child’s eye color was determined to be blue.25 The forehead was unusually high and prominent and the fontanel was not closed. The first toe of the right foot completely overlapped the large toe, and the second toe of the right foot partially overlapped the large toe.26 The lindbergh baby was known to have both conditions. The body was thirty-three-and-a-half inches long with light curly hair. portions of the skin that had not become discolored revealed that the race of the child was Caucasian.27

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 100 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The autopsy report states that the sex of the child is “[u]ndetermined due to marked decomposition of the body.”28 however, the interviews of swayze and Conlon tell a completely different story that has never been reported in any of the books on this case until now. Both swayze and Conlon reported that there was a small portion of scrotal tissue remaining, identifying the gender of the corpse. swayze stated that he actually observed the tissue. Conlon stated that he was spraying the room because of the foul smell and he heard swayze announce that the sex of the body was male.29 The question then is: Why did dr. mitchell not report identification of the gender? Whether he simply forgot, or whether both swayze’s and Conlon’s memories were wrong cannot be ascertained. it would seem unlikely, though, that both swayze and Conlon would independently recall this fact if it was incorrect. perhaps the fact that the autopsy was actually performed by Walter swayze and only observed by mitchell could offer a possible explanation. dr. mitchell was not able to perform the autopsy due to severe arthritis. rather than cause mitchell to lose his job as county coroner, swayze performed the autopsy and mitchell submitted the written reports.30 swayze, as the doctor actually doing the autopsy, was in a better position to make this conclusion. When the visual observations were complete, swayze carefully opened the child’s mouth and put his finger down the throat and past the tongue to see if the child choked to death. The throat was found to be clear.31 The next step in the procedure was to examine the brain. swayze used a scalpel to make an incision across the back of the child’s head. The skin was then pulled back to reveal the cranium or skullcap. For most autopsies, a small saw is used to cut open the skull. however, the baby’s skull came apart almost immediately despite swayze’s best efforts to hold it together. liquefied brain matter spilled onto the table and floor. The odor was overpowering.32 once the skull fell apart, the gooey brain matter was examined for foreign objects. none was found. swayze had seen the small hole in the skull, but had not been told that inspector Walsh had accidentally caused it. he was specifically searching for a bullet. While the remains of the brain offered no clues, the bones of the skull did. swayze discovered a substantial fracture extending from the fontanel down the left side of the skull to a point behind the left ear. on the inside of the skull, near the point of the fracture, was evidence of a hemorrhage or blood clot.33 This was significant because it demonstrated that the child was alive at the time of the fracture. Based upon the severe fracture and blood clot, dr. swayze and dr. mitchell both concluded that the cause of death was a “fractured skull due to external violence.”34 They also concluded that the child likely died immediately or within a few minutes of the fracture. There has been significant criticism of the handling of this autopsy.35 First and foremost, it is astounding that no pictures were taken. normally, the body is thor-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“I Am Perfectly Satisfied That It Is My Child”

/355348t

| 101 |

oughly photographed before and during the procedure. This is done to provide additional evidence and to substantiate the statements and opinions of the doctors in attendance. at the very least, a photograph should have been taken of the fracture and blood clot. during the trial, this failure would be highlighted by defense counsel. second, while the doctor ruled out choking on a foreign substance, he did not check for suffocation or strangulation.36 There is a small bone in the neck that is usually broken during strangulation. There is no evidence that this was ever checked. Finally, no tissue samples were collected for examination. The police collected various pieces of bone and hair from the grave site, yet not one sample was taken at the autopsy. such evidence could have been very important in conclusively identifying the remains. had tissue samples been taken at the autopsy, dna tests would likely have ended such speculation years ago.37 despite the faulty procedures at the autopsy, most physicians generally agree with the conclusion regarding cause of death. The fracture was massive and the existence of the blood clot would seem to support the conclusion of death by skull fracture. While the doctors were examining the child’s remains, reporters and photographers were waiting outside the funeral home for any scrap of information. more reporters and interested onlookers were gathering at the location where the body had been found. Vendors began selling souvenirs and hotdogs near the grave site.38 perhaps the single most offensive action taken by the media occurred later that evening. a reporter and a photographer entered the morgue, pried open the casket, and snapped a picture of the grotesque remains. By morning, the picture was being sold by vendors. exactly how the press gained access to the morgue is not clear. some say that the media entered through a window while others believe an employee at the morgue was bribed. interestingly, John Conlon, who assisted at the autopsy, believed that the photo was a forgery.39 on Friday, may 13, 1932, one final identification was made of the child. Charles lindbergh himself insisted upon viewing the corpse despite warnings from Colonel Breckinridge, his friend and attorney. around four o’clock, lindbergh entered the funeral parlor through a back entrance in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the press. The child’s remains were on a table covered with a sheet. lindbergh stepped forward and ordered the sheet removed. swayze pulled back the covering and exposed the horrible sight. lindbergh’s face flushed, but he said nothing. he stared for a few minutes before bending over, examining the toes, and counting the teeth. after nearly three minutes, lindbergh silently walked into an adjoining room. erwin marshall, a prosecutor from mercer County, approached Colonel lindbergh and asked a question for which everyone already knew the answer. “Colonel lindbergh, are you satisfied this is the body of your baby?” lindbergh replied in a quiet voice, “i am perfectly satisfied that it is my child.” after the remains were identified, they were placed in a small wooden coffin,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 102 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

which was loaded into a hearse. The body was transported to the rosehill Crematory, where, on the orders of Charles lindbergh, the remains were cremated. some authors have actually challenged lindbergh’s decision to cremate the body, claiming it was done to destroy incriminating evidence.40 The reality is that the body was cremated and the ashes spread at sea to prevent souvenir hunters from desecrating the child’s grave. The press had already broken into the funeral parlor and taken pictures of the corpse. it was not unreasonable to believe that, if given the opportunity, they would have exhumed the body to get more pictures. lindbergh’s decision prevented such nonsense. yet, many people try to sell books based on sensationalism, not on truth or facts.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 11 |

The police take the reins

For the first seventy-two days of the investigation, the police had restrained themselves. lindbergh had insisted that the police follow the instructions of the kidnappers, so the authorities walked on eggshells to avoid upsetting the aggrieved father. it was everyone’s desire to see the child returned safely to his parents. however, once the child’s lifeless body was found, the police took full control of the investigation. This was no longer a kidnapping with the hope of a safe return; this was a murder investigation, and the angry public wanted blood. The first order of business for the police was to interrogate John Curtis and John “Jafsie” Condon. These men claimed to have spoken with the kidnappers, and Colonel schwartzkopf intended to get as much information from them as possible. There was also some speculation that one or both of these men might be involved in the crime itself. dr. Condon was asked to come to lindbergh’s home to discuss the case. he happily obliged. When he arrived, he was escorted to a small room with several officers. over the next few hours, Condon went over his story while the officers fired questions at him. When he was finished, the officers told Condon that he would have to repeat his story the next day to an assistant district attorney. Condon agreed and was permitted to go home.1 The troopers were not sure what to make of dr. Condon. They were skeptical of why he became involved in the first place and were suspicious that he might be in league with the kidnapper, but they also realized that Condon had objected to turning over the money without first seeing the baby and had saved Colonel lindbergh $20,000. This uncertainty caused the troopers to handle Condon relatively lightly. That would change in the near future. Curtis was treated quite differently. When he arrived at the sourland estate near midnight on Friday, may 13, 1932, he was immediately taken to a private room and questioned by Captain lamb. Curtis was told to start from the beginning and retell his entire story with detailed descriptions of the gang, their boat, and statements. Curtis kept talking until nearly two o’clock in the morning. lamb played along with Curtis, although he did not believe him. | 103 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 104 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Curtis was allowed to sleep for a few hours on a sofa. at morning’s first light, he was taken by two troopers on a day-long errand. They wanted Curtis to show them all the places where he had met the gang. They spent the morning looking for a house in newark, where one of the meetings allegedly took place. Curtis directed them to a newark neighborhood, but was unable to find the exact house. during lunch, Curtis was taken to a local police station and ordered to look through numerous mug-shot books to see if he could identify anyone. he picked out one photo, saying there was a resemblance to one of the kidnappers. The police soon learned that this man was an inmate at a hospital for the insane in morris plains, new Jersey.2 The remainder of the afternoon was spent searching the neighborhoods of newark for the mysterious house. Curtis saw a few that looked familiar, but never actually found it. The three men spent the night in a local hotel and continued the search the next day without luck. That evening (sunday, may 15, 1932), Curtis was brought back to the sourland estate for more questioning. two different sets of detectives had Curtis repeat his story, continually interrupting him with questions for clarification. Curtis insisted that his story was true, and the police were becoming frustrated. Finally, late that night, the officers finished their questioning and told Curtis he was being sent to a local hotel until morning. Curtis asked to go home to change his clothes and attend to some personal matters. The officers refused. They told him that since he could identify the kidnappers, his life might be in jeopardy, and he had to be protected. The troopers did not really believe this, but used this story to keep Curtis at ease. The next morning, he was driven once again to the sourland estate. The police had grilled him off and on for over two days, so he expected more of the same. to his surprise, the police did not question him. They basically ignored him. Throughout the day, Curtis wandered around the estate. officers kept him under watch, but hardly spoke to him at all. This brilliant tactic worked very well. Curtis loved the attention his fairy tales had generated. now he was forgotten and obviously disliked. he lashed out several times during the day, demanding to see Colonel lindbergh. The police answered his questions, but did little else. By evening, Curtis was exhausted and emotionally vulnerable. he spent most of the evening listening to the radio before being informed that he would sleep on the couch in the den. around midnight, inspector Walsh came to the den to see if Curtis needed anything. Curtis asked Walsh to join him in a game of checkers. While they played, Walsh asked him about his wife and children. Curtis replied that he had telephoned his wife earlier in the day, and she had not sounded well. he was concerned about her and wanted very much to go home. When the game was finished, Walsh suggested they go outside for some fresh air. While they walked, Curtis spoke of his personal and financial hardships. his

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Police Take the Reins

--

/355348t

| 105 |

wife was ill and his company was near bankruptcy. he told Walsh that he had previously suffered a nervous breakdown. Walsh listened carefully, telling Curtis that he understood the level of stress he was under. he suggested that Curtis could relieve some of his stress by telling the truth. Curtis immediately declared that he had been telling the truth all along. But, after a few minutes of silence, he blurted out that he had lied to lindbergh only once. he had not actually seen the ransom money as he claimed. inspector Walsh complimented Curtis for admitting the truth and told him he should tell Colonel lindbergh. Curtis was hesitant, but reluctantly agreed. a few minutes later, Curtis and Walsh met with lindbergh in the dining room. in a strained voice, Curtis admitted to lindbergh that he had never seen the ransom money and checked the serial numbers as he had previously claimed. Curtis explained that he lied in order to convince lindbergh that he was really dealing with the kidnap gang. lindbergh said nothing. he simply stood up with a gesture of disgust and left the room.3 as soon as lindbergh left, Walsh summoned a stenographer and lieutenant Keaton. Then Curtis repeated that he had lied about seeing the ransom money. Walsh asked him to be truthful and admit everything. Curtis insisted that the remainder of his story was absolutely true. Walsh asked the stenographer to leave the room and both he and Keaton aggressively interrogated Curtis for nearly two hours. during this entire time, Curtis offered nothing new. Finally, Walsh stood up and announced he was going to bed. he was nearly out of the room when Curtis jumped from his chair and said he would make a statement. he insisted that he be allowed to prepare it, so Walsh had a typewriter brought in, and Curtis slowly typed out his confession.4 When he finished, he signed the confession and two officers signed as witnesses. They noted the time as 4:35 a.m. on may 17, 1932. The statement read: statement of John hughes Curtis, 702 redgate avenue, norfolk, Va. made by my own hand and own free will. referring to the two statements made previously by me in regards to the linbergh Case. at the present time i am sane, but i honestly believe that for the last seven or eight months i have not been myself, due to financial troubles. i was apparently brought back to my senses by my telephone conversation with my wife this afternoon when she told me of the troubles she was having and how the children missed me, also by my conversation with inspector harry W. Walsh. i desire to state that my remarks about the newspapers are true and can be verified, this in reference to my story about mr. haskell and mr. Willcox of the herald

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 106 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

tribune, mr. lee of the news and mr. turin and mr. Fox, offering me money of my knowledge of the linbergh case or pictures of the baby. The matter was brought to my attention during a conversation and due to what i now believe was a distorted mind by brooding over it, i became insane on the subject for the time being, which caused me to create this story in its entirety, which were untrue in every respect. i never knew such people that i named to Colonel linbergh and they were creatures of a distorted mind, with the exception of morrie truesdale, who had no connection with the crime. i exceedingly regret that i caused Colonel linbergh and others any inconvenience and wish it were in my power to correct my wrong. in justice to my wife and two children i trust it is in the power of Colonel linbergh to forgive the inconvenience, worry and injustice i did him in his time of grief. This statement has been brought about by the realization of the wrong i have done.5

once the statement was finished, signed, and witnessed, Walsh took it and left Curtis alone in the dining room. By most accounts, Curtis remained in the room and wept.6 The following day, a grand jury became involved in this case. The Bronx district attorney’s office started an investigation into the extortion aspect of the case. new york had no jurisdiction over the kidnapping or murder of the child. if Cemetery John was not the kidnapper and turned out to be confidence man seeking to extort money from lindbergh, then it would be a new york case. The first witness called was Colonel Breckinridge, the attorney and friend of Charles lindbergh. he testified about the various ransom notes and his general involvement in the case. al reich and Joseph perrone, the cab driver who delivered one of the kidnapper’s notes, also testified. When the grand jury finished for the day, Condon was told his testimony would not be taken for another four days. as he left the courthouse, he was ambushed by a mob of reporters. Condon boasted that he could identify the kidnapper and was not afraid.7 shortly after Condon’s pronouncement at the courthouse, the press gathered at the lindbergh garage for a hastily called conference. Colonel schwartzkopf addressed the media with John Curtis at his side. he read Curtis’s confession aloud to the press. Curtis stood there with his head bowed and his face flushed with shame. When schwartzkopf finished, he announced that Curtis had prepared another statement. schwartzkopf slowly read it to the shocked reporters. in this statement, Curtis placed the blame on rev. dobson-peacock. Curtis wanted to drop the whole matter before admiral Burrage wrote his letter to lindbergh. ac-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Police Take the Reins

--

/355348t

| 107 |

cording to Curtis, the reverend wanted the publicity and pressured him into continuing his charade. When he finished reading the second statement, schwartzkopf announced that he had spoken with dobson-peacock on the telephone earlier in the afternoon. rev. dobson-peacock agreed to answer questions over the phone, but would not come to new Jersey and place himself within schwartzkopf ’s jurisdiction. over the next several days, rev. dobson-peacock gave numerous statements to the media. he feigned shock and horror at Curtis’s confession, but denied any wrongdoing himself. eventually, dobson-peacock’s name would disappear from the newspapers, but his reputation was thoroughly and completely discredited for the remainder of his life. he never did face criminal charges for his actions. Curtis was not so lucky. on Wednesday, may 18, 1932, he was arraigned by a local magistrate at the sourland estate and charged with giving false information for the purpose of hindering the lindbergh kidnapping investigation. Bail was set at $10,000, and Curtis was remanded to the hunterdon County Jail in Flemington, new Jersey. John Condon spent Wednesday looking at thousands of pictures. he was brought to various police stations in new york and new Jersey in the hope that he might be able to recognize the mysterious Cemetery John. Condon did not identify anyone. The following day, the police conducted some experiments, the most interesting of which concerned the use of a ladder. The police constructed a ladder identical to the first two sections of the kidnapper’s ladder in both design and type of wood. They placed the ladder against the house and recreated the kidnapping. a trooper weighing 160 pounds climbed the ladder to the nursery window and retrieved a bag of sand that was the approximate weight of the child. as the trooper descended, the ladder broke, causing him to drop the sandbag, which landed with a thump on the stone windowsill below. an examination of the ladder revealed that it had split at the same location as the actual kidnapper’s ladder. additionally, the police concluded that the kidnapper weighed about 160 pounds. The ladder was able to withstand this amount of weight, but could not withstand the combined weight of the kidnapper and baby. it was also readily apparent to the police that the windowsill could easily have fractured the child’s skull. in recreating the kidnapping, the police may very well have reenacted the moment of the child’s death. on Friday, may 20, 1932, dr. John Condon made his debut before the Bronx County grand jury. he testified for the entire morning session. his testimony was similar to a class lecture, and he even used a chalkboard to illustrate his points.8 as Jafsie pontificated before the grand jury, the new Jersey state police were preparing to further interrogate the one member of lindbergh’s staff whose story seemed suspicious: Violet sharp.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 108 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 12 |

The sad end of Violet sharp

While Condon was busy lecturing the Bronx County grand jury, the new Jersey state police were plotting their next move in the investigation. some troopers felt that the kidnapping was an inside job and thought that one of lindbergh’s employees might have intentionally or unintentionally assisted the criminals. lindbergh and his family were not usually at the sourland estate on tuesday nights. how did the criminals know to strike on this particular tuesday? how did they know which room was the nursery? The police had already questioned the servants from the sourland estate. Their whereabouts on the evening of march 1 were known, and they had all been cleared of suspicion. The same could not be said, however, of Violet sharp, a young maid employed at the englewood estate. Violet was questioned by state troopers just nine days after the kidnapping. she claimed to have gone to the movies with a man and another couple. The police were suspicious because Violet could not recall the names of the movie, the theater, or those of the other couple. she could not even remember her date’s name. since the first interview, the police noted that sharp’s sister emily sailed for england just four days after the ransom was paid. obviously, this caused further concern. Violet did not help the matter during her second interview on april 13 with inspector Walsh. she continued to insist that she had spent the evening with a date and another couple, but conceded that she had not gone to the movies. instead, they went to a roadhouse called the peanut Grill.1 When Walsh questioned why a proper young lady would go to a roadhouse with three strangers, Violet became angry and simply repeated her entire story. everything she told the police on march 10 had been correct with the exception of where the two couples went on their date. The four went to the peanut Grill in orangeburg, new york, and stayed until nearly ten-thirty. Violet drank coffee, and her companions drank beer. They danced and enjoyed themselves. Violet was dropped off at englewood around eleven.

| 108 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Sad End of Violet Sharp

--

/355348t

| 109 |

she had been unable to remember her date’s name during the first interrogation. she now stated that her date was named ernie. she said she now knew his name because ernie called a few days after her interrogation to seek another date. Violet initially accepted, but later declined.2 When asked to describe ernie, Violet said he was tall with fair hair and complexion. on the evening of their date, he wore a navy-blue suit, a gray coat, and a light-colored hat. The other gentleman was shorter than ernie, but also fair-haired. he had worn a gray coat and a soft felt hat. his date was an attractive girl of medium height and build in her twenties.3 despite further questioning, Violet provided little additional information. even though mrs. morrow insisted that sharp was of excellent character, schwartzkopf wanted her questioned a third time. he was certain that she knew more than she was revealing. once the state police were finished with John Curtis, they sought to question Violet. unfortunately, they would have to wait several days. ms. sharp was admitted to the hospital in englewood on may 11, the day before the discovery of the child’s body. she was suffering from a serious infection of her tonsils and adenoids.4 her condition was fine until she learned that the child was found dead. Thereafter, she became sullen and moody. a few days later, sharp checked herself out of the hospital and returned to englewood to continue her recovery. For more than a week, schwartzkopf tried to schedule an appointment with ms. sharp. she continually refused, claiming to be too ill to answer questions. exasperated, schwartzkopf sent a police physician to examine Violet to determine if she was really ill. to schwartzkopf ’s chagrin, the physician reported that Violet had a slight fever and recommended that she not be questioned until she recovered further.5 despite this report, schwartzkopf demanded that the young maid be questioned anyway. an appointment was made for monday, may 23, at the englewood estate. on the evening of may 23, Violet was questioned in the study at the englewood estate. present were Colonel schwartzkopf, inspector Walsh, lieutenant Keaten, and Charles lindbergh himself. Violet was visibly upset when she entered the room.6 inspector Walsh started the questioning by asking for the name of the man she dated that evening. When ms. sharp replied that she did not know his name, Walsh demanded to know how she met him. Violet went through her meeting with ernie on lydecker street, explaining how ernie waved to her from a car. mistakenly thinking he was someone she knew from the englewood estate, she approached the car. once she realized her mistake, ernie asked her for a date. Violet politely declined and ernie asked to call on her later.7 Walsh interrupted her tale and asked when she next heard from ernie. Violet responded that he had called her that same day around one o’clock at the englewood estate. This answer has been considered by some to be significant. previously, Violet had mentioned only a phone call at eight o’clock. she had received word an

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 110 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

hour and a half earlier that the lindberghs would be remaining at the sourland estate. The obvious implication was that she told ernie about the lindberghs’ plans. if ernie was in league with the kidnapper, he could have forwarded this information. it does not appear that the officers initially thought much of this. Jim Fisher asserts in The Lindbergh Case that Walsh was so startled by Violet’s answer that he immediately asked the question again.8 George Waller asserts in Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case that Violet revealed this earlier phone call only when Walsh directly accused her.9 however, the official transcript shows that Walsh did not repeat his question immediately. he just moved on without comment.10 later, Walsh stated, “you never told us about the one o’clock call.”11 he never asked her about the call again. moreover, Violet freely offered this information.12 she made no attempt to hide it. Furthermore, there is no mention in the transcript of Violet ever telling ernie that the lindberghs were staying in hopewell. in fact, the only mention whatsoever in the transcript of the lindberghs staying at the sourland estate was when Violet said that she had received a phone call that morning about it. Thus, Violet’s answer does not prove that she gave inside information about the intentions of the lindberghs or the location of the baby. The interrogation continued, and Violet again recounted her entire evening at the peanut Grill. The group stayed there for about an hour dancing to the radio and having some drinks.13 one of the officers asked whether there had been any conversation about the lindbergh baby. Violet replied, “no, the only conversation was when the girl asked me how the lindbergh baby was and i said, ‘he was a very cute little fellow.’”14 This answer is not particularly surprising either. if the people with Violet that evening knew she worked for the lindberghs, it would almost be expected that one of them would ask about either Charles lindbergh or his son. it must be remembered that lindbergh was the most famous man in the country, if not the world, and his son was the most famous baby. it would be no different today. if one was socializing with a person who worked at the White house, it would not be surprising for questions to be asked about the president. inspector Walsh then became a little more direct, demanding to know why Violet had lied during the first interrogation. The exact line of questioning was as follows: Q: you told me that you went to a moving picture show when i first questioned you? a: yes. Q: Will you explain why you told a lie about that? a: i could not explain why, i don’t know. Q: you did not have any conception that you were going to the roadhouse when you made this telephone appointment to go to the movies? a: no.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Sad End of Violet Sharp

--

/355348t

| 111 |

Q: Why didn’t you object when you found out you were not going to the moving pictures? a: i did not know anything about it then. Q: are you in the habit of going out with people you don’t know and going and having a drink with them? a: no, i don’t know why i did it. Q: are you in the habit of picking up strange men on the street? a: no, i don’t know why i did it, i just did it and that is all.15

By today’s standards, this line of questioning might seem rude. By the standards of the 1930s, it was scathing and very offensive. it is likely that Walsh was attempting to upset her so she would let slip something of significance. Walsh then changed tactics and began asking about Violet’s finances. The police were concerned about two deposits to her bank account in 1931 and 1932 and her balance of $1,600. ms. sharp contended she had $300 in her account when she started working for lindbergh’s in-laws. her job paid $100 a month and she had been careful to save most of her money. The deposit of $500 in 1931 occurred because she had not made a deposit in some time and the money simply accumulated over time. The deposit of just over $200 in January 1932 was her usual deposit, plus a $100 Christmas bonus from the morrows. some conspiracy theorists believe that the balance of Violet sharp’s bank account could not have been so high considering her job as a servant. They point to this as proof that she was being paid by the kidnapper for inside information or help. This accusation fails to take into account that Violet had few major expenses. her job provided her room and board in addition to a salary. she had little reason to spend her money and could afford to save most of her salary. Consequently, the theory that Violet sharp was paid by the kidnapper for inside information seems far-fetched. When Violet finished discussing her finances, the officers began peppering her with questions about a variety of topics. First, they asked detailed questions about the peanut Grill. Where was it located? how long did it take to get there? What did it look like? Violet answered these questions sufficiently. Then they asked questions about ernie and the other couple. What did they look like? What did they talk about? What kind of car did he drive? Violet answered these as well.16 she was then asked when she first learned of the kidnapping. she responded that she answered a phone call at the englewood estate shortly after she returned home. The call was from mr. Weidner of the New York Times asking for information about the kidnapping. not knowing that it had occurred, Violet told him it was all “a lot of bull.”17 after she hung up, she spoke with mrs. morrow and learned the truth. suddenly, inspector Walsh changed topics and asked about a former boyfriend named mcKelvey.18 Violet admitted that mr. mcKelvey was a photographer for the Daily News and that she had dated him two or three years earlier. she also admitted

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 112 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

that mcKelvey offered her $10,000 for a picture of the lindbergh baby and often asked her questions about the child and the lindberghs. she refused his offers and never received a cent from him.19 Walsh started to ask about her bank account again. although he did not directly make the accusation, it was apparent that he was suggesting that mcKelvey paid her for information. Violet gave solid answers about her finances and again explained the two large deposits.20 some have taken this line of questioning and openly stated that Violet sharp provided information to mcKelvey about the lindberghs’ son. in The Cases That Haunt Us, John douglas and mark olshaker refer to an FBi file in which it was alleged that mcKelvey later admitted to the police that Violet had given him information about the sex of the child, allowing him to scoop the competition by nearly five hours.21 it is not known, however, whether Violet intentionally gave this information for money or as a favor, or whether it was during a casual conversation. Given the media’s despicable behavior during this entire matter, mr. mcKelvey may have dated Violet simply to have a source inside the lindbergh home. Whether Violet was a willing accomplice or a dupe may never be known. after grilling Violet about her ex-boyfriend, Walsh started asking about the man whom many in the morrow household thought was Violet’s current boyfriend and future fiancé, septimus Banks. When the police searched Violet’s room back in march, they found a piece of paper. Written on it were the words “septimus promises to try and be straight for 12 months.” Walsh asked Violet what the words meant. she replied, “it is a private thing, something i don’t wish to answer.”22 The police already knew that septimus Banks, the morrow family butler, had a drinking problem. once they confronted Violet about this, she answered, “Well that is the thing i meant.”23 once the police confirmed that septimus was a drinker, they asked Violet whether she had been intimate with Banks. she initially hesitated, but finally said, “i don’t like Banks in that way, i like him for what he is and how he works with you.”24 unable to gain an admission about a sexual relationship, Walsh tried another attack. he asked Violet whether Banks knew about her date with ernie. she said he did. There were a few additional questions about Violet’s recent illness and her visitors at the hospital.25 Then the interrogation was over.26 after Violet left the room, lindbergh and the officers spoke briefly. lindbergh maintained that the young maid was ill, frightened, and despondent over the death of the baby. he did not consider her a suspect. The police were still not convinced. They felt Violet might still be hiding something and intended to question her again. over the next few days, Violet sharp became more and more depressed and dejected. on June 7, she wrote a letter to a friend in england. This letter offers an opportunity to see Violet’s fragile mental state.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Sad End of Violet Sharp

/355348t

| 113 |

dearest Fan, Just a hurried line at last. so glad to get your letter this morning. i hope you will forgive me not writing before, but really we have so much trouble here over this lindbergh baby. We have all been questioned by the police and i have been in the hospital a week with a poisoned throat—i had my tonsils out and i weigh only 7 stones, the least i have ever been in my life and i feel as weak as a rat. i want to come home so much, but i can not leave the country or they would think i knew some thing about the baby. you have no idea what we have been through. When the police had me for questioning i fainted 2 in 2 hours so you can guess how weak i was. i was so sorry to hear about that little girl. Fan, gee life is getting so sad i really don’t think there is much to live for any more. i bet you miss her so much. i had a letter from home to say my sisters husband has had a stroke and he is just helpless as a baby, can’t move or do anything. he is only 31. my mother is not so good and edna could not get a job out here. so, she has gone home, went on the aquatania on the 6th of april, sailed at midnight. i hope she stays over there until september as there is no work over here just now and the heat is terrible. it takes all the pep out of you. you can’t go out, it is too hot and we are not going to north haven this year until august or september as mrs. lindbergh is expecting her other baby in august and they live here again now. The last one was born in this house. i have been here over 2 years now, quite an old servant, don’t you think? Well, dear Fan, i must close hoping you are all quite well at home. love to all and your self. your loving pal, Violet27

This letter was clearly written under a tremendous amount of stress. she was physically sick, having been hospitalized and questioned by the police repeatedly. her brother-in-law had suffered a debilitating stroke, rendering him a complete invalid at the age of thirty-one. she was unhappy with her work and wanted to return home to england, but could not do so without raising further suspicions about her credibility. her condition would continue to worsen. two days after penning the letter, Violet was summoned to the study. When she arrived, inspector Walsh and a secretary named laura hughes were waiting for her. she sat down and inspector Walsh instructed her to go over her story yet again. Choking back tears, Violet complied. Whenever she hesitated, Walsh fired questions at her, trying to catch her or force her to stumble. When Violet finished, Walsh pulled out a photograph of ernest Brinkert, a smalltime criminal and former owner of the post road taxi Company in White plains,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 114 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

new york. he showed it to Violet and asked her if this was ernie. she looked at the picture and said it was the same man. Walsh then demanded to know why she had not given ernest Brinkert’s name to the police before. Violet reminded the officer that she never knew his last name and only recently recalled his first name. Walsh started shouting and insisted that the young maid did know his name because they had found ernest Brinkert’s business cards in her room. Violet immediately denied this and began to cry. Walsh continued shouting at the nearly hysterical woman. “is this or is it not the man you were with that night?” “yes, it is! yes, it is!” Violet shrieked.28 she was now weeping uncontrollably. inspector Walsh had no intention of stopping his questioning, no matter how upset Violet became. however, before he could ask any further questions, laura hughes stood up, summoned the family doctor, and tried to console the upset woman. a few minutes later, the doctor arrived. he examined Violet and announced that he would not allow any more questioning for the day. her pulse was rapid, her blood pressure dangerously high, and she was on the verge of hysteria. Walsh agreed to stop the interrogation, but declared that he would resume his questioning the next day at his office. Violet was escorted from the room by the doctor. as she left, she glanced down at laura hughes and smiled and winked. neither the doctor nor inspector Walsh saw this, and hughes did not report it right away.29 Violet’s smile and wink have been a major source of controversy. First, we have only the word of laura hughes that it actually occurred. assuming, however, that ms. hughes was telling the truth, the question remains as to why Violet did this. There are several possibilities. it is possible that Violet faked her condition as a means to end the interrogation. she had been grilled three times already and each session became more nasty and personal. The other and more likely reason was that she was saying thank you to ms. hughes for her assistance. either way, one should reject summarily any accusations that sharp’s smile and wink were something more sinister. There is no evidence linking Violet to the kidnapping, and a thorough review of her diary and personal letters do not show anything evil or diabolical about her. Violet was probably expressing thanks to laura hughes, especially considering Violet’s behavior over the next twenty-four hours. later that evening, Violet was still extremely upset and emotional. she tried to explain the questioning to Betty Gow and another servant. she worked herself into a frenzy and began screaming, “They’ll never take me from this house again!” and “They’ll never question me again.”30 on the morning of June 10, Walsh called the englewood estate. he spoke with arthur springer, mrs. morrow’s personal secretary, and informed him that he was

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Sad End of Violet Sharp

--

/355348t

| 115 |

sending an officer to transport Violet sharp to his office for further questioning. a doctor would be present during the interrogation to monitor the girl’s health. When Violet was given the news, she ran to septimus Banks, screaming at the top of her lungs, “Walsh wants to question me again, but i won’t go! i won’t! i won’t!” septimus tried to calm the frightened woman, but to no avail. Violet moved away from him, grabbed a measuring glass, and ran upstairs. she went to a closet and retrieved a container of powdered silver polish. There was a label on the container with a warning that it was poisonous. she took the polish and measuring glass to the bathroom and mixed the powder with water. she walked into her bedroom, placed the can of polish on a small table, and drank all of the poisonous liquid, leaving only a residue in the glass. Violet then walked slowly down the stairs to the pantry, where she was met by emily Kempairien, another maid at the estate. Violet tried to speak, but could manage only a sputter and a gasp before collapsing on the floor.31 emily screamed for help. septimus Banks ran into the pantry. he tried to revive Violet without success. in a matter of minutes, dwight morrow Jr. was brought to the pantry. he ordered that a doctor be called, and he and Banks carried Violet to her room and placed her on her bed.32 By the time the doctor arrived, Violet sharp was already dead. it was not long before inspector Walsh and lieutenant Keaton arrived at the estate. They found the can of polish and measuring glass in Violet’s room. The label on the can revealed that nearly 75 percent of the powder was cyanide chloride. There was little question that Violet had drunk the poison. There were traces of the crystalline powder on the bathroom sink, measuring glass, and the girl’s lips. after the coroner arrived and pronounced the obvious conclusion of suicide, Walsh called Colonel schwartzkopf to give him the news. The colonel was not pleased. his best suspect was dead, and the media was about to turn against him dramatically.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 116 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 13 |

From Bad to Worse

a press conference was held later that afternoon to discuss the death of the morrows’ young maid. Colonel schwartzkopf informed the media of Violet’s suicide and said, “The suicide of Violet sharp strongly tends to confirm the suspicions of the investigating authorities concerning the guilty knowledge of the crime against Charles lindbergh, Jr.”1 schwartzkopf continued by pointing out the inconsistencies in sharp’s story, the fact that she would not reveal her date’s name, and that she knew the lindberghs would be remaining in hopewell that evening. When he had finished, the media had many questions. They wanted details on Violet’s death and its effect on the investigation. schwartzkopf gave few details, but made sure not to mention Violet’s illness or the methods used by the police to question her. There was no mention of her breakdown the evening prior to her death. after answering the questions of the press with carefully worded answers that did not reveal anything, schwartzkopf ended the conference with the hope that this would prevent any controversy. he could not have been more wrong. immediately after the press conference, Colonel schwartzkopf ordered the arrest and interrogation of ernest Brinkert. he was not about to let a good lead die with Violet sharp. if Violet would not talk, maybe ernie would. While the police were searching for ernest Brinkert, John Condon was summoned to the police station in White plains. The police theorized that if ernie Brinkert was the kidnapper, he might also be Cemetery John. When Condon arrived, lieutenant Keaton handed him a photo of Brinkert. he examined it for a moment and declared that while the man resembled John, the picture was much too light to be sure.2 Condon was sent home. until Brinkert was captured, they would simply have to wait. a few hours later, the police arrested Brinkert. he was found sitting in his car outside a store on sickles avenue in new rochelle, new york. Brinkert had actually called the police from that store, promising to turn himself in. The police were unwilling to wait. They traced the phone call and sent an army of officers and detectives after their quarry. Brinkert offered no resistance.3 | 116 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

From Bad to Worse

--

/355348t

| 117 |

he was brought to the new rochelle station and interrogated. he adamantly denied even knowing Violet sharp, let alone dating her. he even had an alibi for the night of the kidnapping. he and his wife mary had spent the night in Connecticut playing cards with a man named Frank page. he was hundreds of miles from hopewell that night.4 The police did not believe him. promising to verify the alibi, the police confronted Brinkert with his business cards found in Violet sharp’s room. he had no explanation, but insisted he never met her. pressed on the matter, Brinkert stated, “That would be impossible for me to account for as i never knew the addresses of all the fares i rode and it could be possible that this card came from me while she was a fare in my cab or after i sold the cab. if this is so, i have no knowe [sic] of it because i never kept a record of the people the cards were distributed to.”5 The police were still not convinced. They began delving into their suspect’s criminal record. Brinkert readily admitted to an arrest on a charge of petit larceny and a conviction for attempted assault in the second degree, which resulted in a jail sentence of eight months and twenty days.6 he even admitted that he was legally married to two different women, though neither woman knew of the other.7 he married his second wife, mary morrisroe Brinkert, on Thursday, september 17, 1931, in Greenwich, Connecticut. mary thought he was divorced.8 There is no mention of the name of Brinkert’s first wife, although there is a reference to her employment at Genung’s department store in White plains.9 ernest was freely admitting to his criminal past and his current bigamy. he continued to insist that he never met Violet sharp. The police also questioned mary Brinkert that evening. she confirmed that the couple had been in Connecticut on march 1 playing cards, but was quite surprised when the police told her that ernest was still married to his first wife.10 Brinkert’s alibi seemed to be gaining strength while his second marriage was taking a beating. after Brinkert had been questioned for several hours, John Condon arrived at the station. The police were expecting the doctor to identify their suspect as Cemetery John. Their hopes were dashed a few seconds later when dr. Condon announced that he had never seen Brinkert before. Jafsie was sent home, but Brinkert was not so lucky. While he may not have been Cemetery John, he might still have been involved as an accomplice. The police continued to question their suspect until after three o’clock in the morning with no results. The following morning, Brinkert was driven to alpine for further questioning. handwriting samples were obtained and sent for comparison with the ransom notes. The police were certain that Brinkert was in league with the kidnapper until someone walked into a new Jersey police station claiming to be the man who dated Violet sharp on the night of the kidnapping. his name was ernest miller. Though the police assumed this just another crank, they brought miller to inspector Walsh anyway. Walsh questioned miller and was surprised to find that he believed him.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 118 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

miller said he met Violet for the first time while driving on lydecker street. he made a date with her on the phone and picked her up at the englewood estate. a second couple, elmer Johnson and Katherine minners,11 joined them that evening. The four went to the peanut Grill roadhouse in orangeburg. he even confirmed that he dropped Violet off around eleven o’clock.12 his story matched Violet’s account precisely. miller was asked why Violet did not know his name and why she identified ernest Brinkert when the men looked nothing alike. he could offer no answer, but suggested that the police confirm his story with minners and Johnson. miller was informed that he would remain in custody along with Brinkert until his statement was verified. Walsh was perplexed. Violet sharp’s statements had never been made public, yet miller’s story matched her second statement perfectly. he had no criminal record and no obvious reason to lie. shortly thereafter, Katherine minners and elmer Johnson were contacted and questioned. They confirmed everything.13 it was only a few hours later when the police verified that ernest Brinkert was actually in Connecticut on the night of the kidnapping. They were forced to conclude that Brinkert was not guilty and miller was the real ernie. They had to release Brinkert from custody and clear him of suspicion when handwriting expert albert s. osborn informed them that Brinkert had not written the ransom notes. When Colonel schwartzkopf learned of these developments, he was greatly concerned. The press was hungry for information. When they learned the police arrested the wrong ernie and that Violet sharp had been telling the truth about the roadhouse, they would be merciless. schwartzkopf still had one further card to play. he called scotland yard in england and asked them to question Violet’s sister, emily. emily had left the united states only a few days after the ransom payoff. This was considered highly suspicious. once again, schwartzkopf ’s efforts were fruitless. inspectors from scotland yard questioned emily for several hours before concluding she was of good character and had nothing to do with the lindbergh case.14 There was nothing left to do but face the music. schwartzkopf ordered inspector Walsh to hold a press conference and inform the media about ernest miller while he began leaking information to the media to soften the blow. That day, the New York Times received copies of all of Violet sharp’s statements along with a police report detailing the inconsistencies and problems with her various stories.15 it appears that schwartzkopf was preparing his defense by attacking the now deceased girl. meanwhile, inspector Walsh was fending off angry reporters at a press conference. despite being pressed, Walsh stuck to his guns. “This is a peculiar turn of events,” he lamented, “it is no fault of ours. i can’t understand why Violet sharp, if she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, preferred death to revealing miller’s name. i cannot understand it at all.”16

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

From Bad to Worse

--

/355348t

| 119 |

he pointed out that sharp identified a picture of ernest Brinkert, and Brinkert’s business cards were found in Violet’s room. This, in and of itself, was suspicious and justified further investigation. The next day, the New York Times ran a series of articles about Violet sharp, ernest miller, ernest Brinkert, and the new Jersey state police.17 They printed Violet’s written statements and quoted inspector Walsh from the press conference. however, what created the most controversy were comments from emily sharp. emily was clearly distraught over her sister’s suicide. she pulled no punches and placed the blame for Violet’s death at the feet of Colonel schwartzkopf and the state police. her exact statement as printed was: ever since the baby disappeared, Violet was badgered and questioned until she did not know what she was saying or doing. she was driven nearly mad. after the baby was stolen, Violet wrote me and i went to englewood to see her. she was terribly distressed and said the police had been questioning her for hours. she asserted that she knew nothing about the child’s disappearance, but she said the police would not believe her. it was all so cruel. Violet would never have done anything to the child or to anyone who wanted to find it.18

The following day, newspapers from all over the world came down on the state police like a ton of bricks. many columnists accused the police of hounding Violet sharp to her grave. even the politicians of the day went on the attack. members of the united states Congress referred to the new Jersey state police as inept, and the British parliament demanded an investigation, insisting that english citizens be protected from police brutality. This was the beginning of the negative press and criticism that would plague the new Jersey state police throughout the investigation. in fact, the criticism continues to this day. There are still questions about Violet sharp’s death. Why would an innocent girl take her own life? Was she hiding something? Was she in league with the kidnappers? many theories have been offered to explain the young maid’s behavior. John douglas and mark olshaker theorize in their book, The Cases That Haunt Us, that Violet realized she had unwittingly given information to the kidnapper and was unable to live with that guilt.19 There is no evidence to support their conclusion. There is nothing in Violet sharp’s diaries or personal letters indicating any guilt or concern in this area.20 additionally, her hysterical ranting to Betty Gow the night before she died demonstrated that she was more upset with the behavior of inspector Walsh than anything else. Jim Fisher provides a completely different opinion on the matter. he cites a 1936 report from sgt. a. e. norman, which alleges that Violet had been sexually intimate with five different men while employed at the englewood estate. Based upon this

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 120 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

information, Fisher concludes that Violet was scared that the police would uncover this information, and mrs. morrow would fire her. once fired, she would have no alternative but to return to england in disgrace. she preferred death.21 mark Falzini questions this assertion. he writes that other than one report referencing a possible liaison with a man named William o’Brien, there is no support for the allegations of promiscuity within records maintained by the new Jersey state police museum and archives.22 While Violet may have met these men, or even dated them, there is little evidence to conclude she was sexually intimate with them. of greater importance, there is no evidence that the police were aware of these relationships, and Violet makes no reference to them in her diaries or letters. Certainly if she was fearful of her sexual past being made public, there would be some passing mention in her diary. it is impossible to know for sure exactly why Violet sharp chose to commit suicide. it is just too subjective. The best evidence available on Violet’s state of mind is her diary and June 7, 1932, letter to miss F. simons. in the letter, she wrote about her physical illness, claiming to be “as weak as a rat” and referred to a young girl who apparently died. she also mentions her brother-in-law, who had suffered a paralyzing stroke at the age of thirty-one. she labels herself as “quite an old servant.” her diary offers a look at Violet’s dreams for the future. John douglas and mark olshaker concluded from the diary that Violet had ambitions beyond being a mere servant. she wanted to break out of her position and be respected like mrs. morrow and mrs. lindbergh.23 on this point, they are right. Violet sharp intended to work as a maid only until she saved enough money to return home to england and live the life of her dreams. she had already banked $1,600 and was well on her way. When the police initially questioned her, she lied about the movies. if mrs. morrow learned that she had gone to a roadhouse with a man she barely knew, she could have lost her job. mrs. morrow was extremely conservative and considered “old school,” even for 1932. in the world of high society, one did not frequent roadhouses or gin mills. to do so was considered disgraceful. servants and maids of people of high social status were expected to behave in a prim and proper manner lest they cause embarrassment to the family. once the police realized the movie story was a lie, Violet was really in trouble. not only was she still facing trouble with mrs. morrow, but now the police were interested in her as a suspect. she had no choice but to admit her imprudence and hope to keep her job once the investigation was over. unfortunately, things got even worse. The police uncovered her past relationship with mr. mcKelvey. inspector Walsh practically accused her of selling inside information about the lindberghs to the media. at this point, Violet may have felt that her job and any chance of reaching her goals were in serious jeopardy. she had been in a roadhouse and was being accused of violating the morrows’ confidence for money. This would all be in the newspapers eventually. she probably concluded that mrs. morrow would have to fire her to

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

From Bad to Worse

--

/355348t

| 121 |

save face socially. once her indiscretions were made public, no one of high society would even consider hiring her. she could not even return home to england without the authorities considering that an act of guilt. to add further pressure, Violet was physically sick. she lost a substantial amount of weight and strength. The added stress from her interrogations was likely aggravating her condition as well. she also learned that her brother-in-law had suffered a serious and debilitating stroke that left him a paralyzed invalid at the age of thirty-one. Finally, Violet was becoming concerned about her age. By today’s standards, she was rather young, just twenty-eight years old. By the standards of the 1930s, she was approaching the status of “old maid” or “spinster.” all of these things may have left Violet believing that her career and her life were permanently stalled. once fired by the morrows, she would not only be unable to get work as a maid, but also would be unable to ascend to the life she desired or marry the kind of man she wanted. even the affections of a butler like septimus Banks, which was always a safety net for her, would soon be unavailable. Violet sharp may have thought that her life was effectively over. her dreams were ruined and she would never really be happy. everything she had hoped and worked for was gone in a matter of weeks because she had lied about going to a roadhouse. one lie developed into a cascade of allegations and scandal. as she wrote to her friend, “life is getting so sad i really don’t think there is much to live for anymore.” obviously, the actual reasons for suicide died with Violet sharp. But, given the evidence available, it appears that with her life crumbling and her future becoming more and more bleak, Violet felt she had no other option. While some still consider her either a suspect or a possible source of information to the kidnapper, she was in truth another victim of the lindbergh kidnapping.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 122 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 14 |

The Frustration mounts

The extremely negative press was adding to the immense frustration of the police. The kidnapping and murder case was now over three months old and they were still no closer to catching the perpetrator. With little else to go on, the state police turned to the only man who actually saw the kidnapper—John “Jafsie” Condon. not everyone was convinced of the doctor’s sincerity. some felt it too convenient that the kidnapper responded so quickly to Condon’s letter in a small local newspaper. perhaps he was a conspirator. on June 16, the police picked up Condon at his home on the pretext that he was to examine photographs of possible suspects at the patterson station.1 While en route, one of the officers informed Condon that they had orders to take him to the alpine station. Condon just assumed they would look at pictures there.2 When they arrived, Condon was brought to a conference room, where several troopers and municipal police he did not recognize were waiting for him. The officers would not speak with him, and Condon knew he was there for more ominous reasons. When asked to sit, Jafsie refused, preferring to stand until he was told why he had been duped. he waited for about fifteen minutes until inspector Walsh entered the room and walked right up to him. “all right, Condon, it’s about time you started to confess!”3 “Confess what?” Condon replied disingenuously. he clearly knew what Walsh meant. The doctor had received numerous letters and phone calls accusing him of involvement in the crime. Walsh’s question was rather apparent. Walsh was not in the mood for games. “We know a good deal more about this case than you think we know. We’ve questioned red Johnson, Violet sharp, Betty Gow, and a flock of others. and now it’s your turn.”4 Condon sarcastically responded, “don’t let me stop you.”5 “no man stops me,” Walsh growled, “you might as well get it straight now. i’m a cop first, last, always!”6 losing his temper, Walsh grabbed Condon by the arms in an attempt to intimidate him.

| 122 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Frustration Mounts

--

/355348t

| 123 |

Condon’s temper flared. he pushed Walsh away, yelling, “i don’t care if you’re the governor of this state. Keep your hands off me!”7 Walsh hesitated momentarily. he did not want to back down in front of so many officers, but realized that a physical altercation with Condon was a mistake. Jafsie was a large man, standing slightly over six feet and weighing more than two hundred pounds. he was a fitness buff and quite strong. after a moment, Walsh approached Condon slowly and said, “if you confess now, you’ll save yourself a great deal of humiliation later.”8 Condon again played stupid by responding, “Confess what?”9 Walsh began rapidly firing questions at Condon. did he get a share of the ransom money? Why had he not followed the exact directions in the note found at the flower shop? Was that a signal to the kidnapper? Jafsie answered the questions, insisting he had told the truth and had done nothing wrong. Walsh became exasperated and shouted, “if God in heaven came down and told me that story, i wouldn’t believe it!”10 Condon, in his usual pompous manner, starting lecturing Walsh for blasphemy, causing the inspector to again lose his temper and grab Jafsie’s arm. Condon shoved him again, only harder, causing Walsh to fall back on a windowsill. “now get this,” Condon snapped, “place me under arrest and i’ll be as docile as a child. you can do anything you want to me then. But, until you place me under arrest, keep those hands off me!”11 Walsh quickly realized that physical intimidation was not working. he changed his tactics and tone of voice and quietly asked Condon why he chose to disregard the specific instructions in the kidnapper’s note by walking past Whittemore avenue and heading east on tremont. “yes, for the reasons i have given you. it was an act, i believe, that met with the full approval of Colonel lindbergh, who was there.”12 suddenly sensing a weakness, Walsh softly but strongly said, “you’d better tell the truth now, Condon. Colonel lindbergh is not a friend of yours.”13 Walsh’s strategy worked brilliantly. Condon was clearly stung by the remark and was speechless, which, for Condon, is saying something. For the first time since arriving at the station, Condon sat down. Though he believed Walsh was being deceitful, he could not eliminate this possibility.14 now that Condon was seated and tempers calmed, Walsh slowly questioned him about his role in the payment of the ransom. after nearly four hours, Condon had still not confessed. Frustrated, inspector Walsh returned to a more aggressive tone. “you’re going to stay here until you confess,” he snarled, “you’d better call your family.”15 The comment did not have the desired effect. “my family knows that i can take care of myself,” Condon retorted.16

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 124 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“you may be here for three months,” Walsh suggested. “i’ll stay,” Condon added. infuriated at the arrogant and dismissive response, Walsh stormed out of the room with the other officers close behind, leaving the doctor alone. since he was very tired, Condon made himself comfortable in his chair and fell asleep. some time later, the officers returned to find Jafsie sleeping. “Will you look at that,” Walsh offered sarcastically, “you’d think he was home in bed.” The voices woke Condon. he stretched his arms before announcing, “i’m ready.”17 instead of further questions and shouting, Walsh spoke to Condon in a voice later described by Jafsie as fatherly. “Get your hat. do you know how to play croquet?” Condon’s response was typically egotistical. “i’m an expert at the game. But, i prefer boxing.”18 The men neither boxed nor played croquet. instead, they went for a walk along the palisades, which had cliffs and drops of nearly seven hundred feet. Condon noticed he was carefully positioned between the cliff edge and inspector Walsh, which he believed to be an intimidation tactic.19 to counter this perceived psychological ploy, Condon walked right to the precipice of one of the cliffs and commented on the view. Walsh ordered the doctor away from the cliff. as Condon walked back, he said, “i have nothing to confess, inspector, and i don’t plan to commit suicide.”20 Walsh did not respond, choosing instead to ask further questions in a soft, reassuring tone. Condon’s answers were the same as they had been all day. obviously, he was not going to confess. The inspector brought Jafsie back to the station and ordered him to be taken home.21 Colonel schwartzkopf knew that Condon had not confessed, but if physical evidence against him could be uncovered, maybe his tongue would loosen. numerous searches were made of Condon’s home and property. in Jafsie Tells All, Condon reported that the police searched his entire home and even ripped wallpaper from the wall in his study, presumably looking for missing ransom money. They also dug holes in his yard, examined the foundation of his summer shack in City island, reviewed his mail, and tapped his telephone.22 nothing was found. to make matters worse, John Curtis was back in the news. after his breakdown and confession, Curtis was charged with new Jersey’s version of obstruction of justice. now his trial was beginning. The case was heard in the hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington, new Jersey, and Curtis was represented by attorney lloyd Fisher.23 even though Curtis had committed despicable acts, there was a serious problem with the case. it was not illegal at that time to lie to the police. The only way to convict Curtis was to prove that he had intentionally misled the police in order to protect the real criminal or criminals.24 if the jury was presented only with the confession admitting to a complete hoax, Curtis would walk free. people in the courthouse were shocked when district attorney anthony m. hauck Jr. stood for his opening statement and said, “We will prove that John hughes

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Frustration Mounts

--

/355348t

| 125 |

Curtis was actually in contact with the kidnappers, that he knew who they were and knew their whereabouts, and that he did not disclose their whereabouts to either Colonel lindbergh or to the authorities because there was no satisfactory arrangement with Colonel lindbergh as to the amount of the ransom.”25 The district attorney’s office would try to prove that Curtis’s confession was false. he had been dealing with the real kidnappers and was now lying to protect them. it was a twisted distortion of the law that should never have been permitted by the judge. it was not the last time the law would be butchered and manipulated to secure a conviction.26 lloyd Fisher was livid. his entire defense was in jeopardy. it had been his intention to argue that his client’s conduct was not illegal. With the sudden change in the prosecutor’s strategy, Fisher now had to prove that the hoax was really a hoax. essentially, he had to prove a negative, which is nearly impossible. The trial lasted for three days, highlighted by the appearance on the witness stand of Charles lindbergh himself. The crowded courtroom listened to the lone eagle testify that he did not initially believe Curtis. it was only after the efforts with Jafsie Condon failed that the Colonel chose to join Curtis in the search for the kidnappers’ boat.27 during cross-examination, lloyd Fisher asked lindbergh whether he really believed Curtis was actually in contact with the true kidnappers. The Colonel responded, “i do not at this time believe mr. Curtis was in contact with the kidnappers. i do not believe that he ever knew who took the child or in whose possession he was.”28 after the presentation of evidence and closing arguments from both sides, Judge adam o. robbins carefully charged the jury. Curtis could be found guilty only if the jury was convinced that his original story to rev. dobson-peacock, admiral Burrage, and Charles lindbergh was true. Just over four hours later, the jury returned and announced a verdict of guilty, suggesting that they felt Curtis deserved punishment for his cruel actions toward the lindberghs. however, the verdict included a recommendation of mercy. instead of giving Curtis the maximum sentence of three years in jail, Judge robbins followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. after the trial, Curtis, smiling broadly, was taken away in handcuffs. his attorney professed outrage at the verdict, promising an appeal while Colonel schwartzkopf and other police officers quietly told reporters that Curtis was never in contact with the real kidnapper at any time.29 over the next few days, columnists openly speculated on the real role John Curtis played in the investigation. some theorized that Curtis got involved for the money. deeply in debt, he hoped his public appearance would cause the real kidnapper to contact him. Then he could get part of the reward or even sell his story to the highest bidder. others thought he was just seeking publicity. There were even

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 126 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

rumors of gangs of rumrunners with Curtis as an accomplice. With Curtis in jail, the rumors lasted only a few days before the papers went quiet again.30 one additional piece of information came out in august 1932. schwartzkopf was contacted by scotland yard, which expressed significant interest in the symbol found on the ransom notes. The detectives in england were convinced that the initials of the kidnapper were, in no particular order, B, r, and h. The B referred to the large blue circles, the r to the small red circle, and the three holes represented the h. schwartzkopf found the conclusion amusing, but not of great significance. ironically, the police would eventually arrest Bruno richard hauptmann for the crime, and his initials obviously fit scotland yard’s theory. This could be brilliant police work, a lucky guess, or the greatest coincidence in history. it is almost assuredly a coincidence. Given that hauptmann’s primary language was German, he probably naturally thought in that language as well. in German, the words for “blue” and “red” are blau and rot. The word for hole is Loch. Thus, it seems more logical that hauptmann would not have used the code suggested by scotland yard. if he did, his code would have been some combination of B, r, and l. scotland yard’s theory cannot be completely disproved, though. hauptmann did write the ransom notes in english, so it is certainly possible. later that month, on august 16, 1932, the lindberghs had some much needed happiness. at a town apartment in manhattan, owned by mrs. morrow, anne gave birth to her second son, Jon lindbergh. The concerned father issued a written statement to the press that was read by Colonel Breckinridge. it read: mrs. lindbergh and i have made our home in new Jersey. it is naturally our wish to continue to live there near our friends and interests. obviously, however, it is impossible for us to subject the life of our second son to the publicity which we feel was in large measure responsible for the death of our first. We feel that our children have a right to grow up normally with other children. Continued publicity will make this impossible. i am appealing to the press to permit our children to lead the lives of normal americans.31

lindbergh might as well have spat in the wind. The press continued to cover his every move without hesitation or remorse. to make matters worse, almost from the moment Jon was born, letters started pouring in from various lunatics threatening to kidnap the child. one letter was particularly disturbing. it demanded that $50,000 be left in a rotten stump “near a big white pine tree” in roanoke, Virginia, or Jon would be kidnapped and killed. There was also a cruel reference to the kidnapping of Charles Jr., claiming that the child died because the lindberghs called the police. a few other letters from the same crackpot arrived a few days later.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Frustration Mounts

--

/355348t

| 127 |

lindbergh turned the letters over to the new Jersey state police. other than the amount of money demanded, there were no other similarities to the original ransom notes. since there was no connection to the kidnapping of Charles Jr., the matter was turned over to the roanoke police department in Virginia.32 The Virginia case was assigned to det. robert Johnson, who quickly located the rotten stump and left a letter there in the guise of being lindbergh’s personal secretary. The letter claimed that $50,000 was too much money. Johnson also wrote that he would be staying at a local hotel under the name of John J. Jones. it was not long before a letter for mr. Jones arrived at the hotel demanding payment of $50,000 or Jon lindbergh would die. a quick response was left in the stump, insisting that $50,000 would not be paid. over the next two weeks, letters were written back and forth, negotiating a fair price for Jon lindbergh’s life. eventually, a deal was struck for $17,000. amazingly, the criminal agreed to accept a check payable at a local roanoke bank.33 Clearly, detective Johnson was not dealing with a genius or master criminal. Johnson placed an envelope in the rotten stump containing a check for $17,000 made out to cash. on the back of the check was written “no transfer. to be delivered to bearer as per the transfer agreement provided it is presented to this bank.”34 as a final touch, there was a note on the outside of the envelope warning that the content should be disregarded by all except the criminal. The whole matter would be funny, if it were not so pathetic. The check was taken, but not immediately cashed. Three weeks later, a man walked into the bank and presented the check. he endorsed the check with the name “roy Brown” and demanded that he be paid in large bills.35 all of the bank tellers had been briefed by the police to look out for this particular check, so the teller, leigh stevens, asked mr. Brown to wait while he retrieved the money. after walking out of Brown’s line of sight, he called the police. as detectives Brown and Ferguson hurried to the bank, mr. stevens followed his prearranged instructions. stevens took pads of bank receipts, which were roughly the size of paper money, wrapped them in brown paper, and tied them together. placing the bundle in a sack, he walked back to mr. Brown, who was still waiting patiently. Brown thanked the teller and left the bank with the sack. Brown and Ferguson arrived just as mr. Brown left the bank. They followed him and observed him meet up with another man. The second man recognized them as detectives and took off running. Both men were quickly arrested, though Brown actually got as far as a car, where a woman and a child were waiting.36 The police quickly learned that “roy Brown” was really nineteen-year-old Joseph Bryant. his accomplice was norman harvey, age twenty-six, and the woman was harvey’s wife, elsie.37 Bryant refused to confess any involvement. he claimed that he was searching

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 128 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

local tree stumps for liquor bottles left by moonshiners when he found the check. The harveys agreed to help him cash it for a share of the money.38 harvey was confronted with Bryant’s story. he angrily told the police that Bryant was lying. according to harvey, Bryant offered him $10,000 if he would endorse and cash the check, but he refused. Then, out of the kindness of his heart, he gave Bryant a ride to the bank.39 he could not explain why he ran when he saw the detectives. unable to get the men to budge from their conflicting stories, the matter was turned over to the federal authorities, who charged them with conspiracy and mailing threatening letters and placed them in jail under a $25,000 bail.40 Thus, in just under a month, the case of attempted extortion and threatened kidnapping against Jon lindbergh was solved and the guilty parties arrested. it would take significantly longer for an arrest to be made for the crimes against Jon’s older brother.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Shoenfeld and Koehler

/355348t

| 129 |

| 15 |

shoenfeld and Koehler

up to this point, the new Jersey state police maintained exclusive jurisdiction over the investigation. While the FBi was permitted to assist, their role was greatly limited, much to the chagrin of J. edgar hoover, the head of the Bureau. schwartzkopf vainly believed his force could solve the crime. other departments just wanted to steal the credit. one of the other agencies looking to join the investigation was the new york police department. although the kidnapping and murder took place in new Jersey, all of the ransom notes had been mailed from new york. even the payment of the ransom occurred in new york. The new york police department and the Bronx County district attorney’s office were investigating possible extortion charges under new york law against Cemetery John. since the extortionist and kidnapper were likely one and the same, it seemed reasonable to combine the two searches. lt. det. James Finn of the new york police department was assigned to head the new york portion of the lindbergh case. Finn repeatedly contacted Colonel schwartzkopf requesting copies of the ransom notes and other evidence. schwartzkopf continually refused. By the fall of 1932, unable to serve any useful role in new Jersey’s investigation, Finn began working on his own. he started by examining the theory of the crime held by many of the new Jersey troopers that the child was kidnapped by a group of gangsters. Finn felt that only a fool would target a national hero like lindbergh for the crime. There were other targets with more money and less fame than the lone eagle. also, the method of the crime seemed too sloppy for an organized gang. Finn believed that any group sponsored by organized crime would not have left so much evidence at the scene. he remembered a conversation he had with leigh matteson of the international news service back in april. matteson referred to a theory offered by a young psychiatrist that the kidnapping was the work of a lone wolf with delusions of grandeur. This doctor even predicted that the child would be killed nearly a month before the corpse was discovered.1 | 129 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 130 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Finn called matteson and learned that the young doctor was dudley d. shoenfeld. a graduate of new york university and Bellevue medical College, shoenfeld served as a clinic assistant and adjunct psychiatrist at mount sinai hospital, was chief of the out-patient department of the mental health Clinic, and consultant psychiatrist at the hebrew orphan asylum. he was even able to maintain a private practice.2 Finn arranged to meet with him to discuss the case. dr. shoenfeld had followed the case in the newspapers from the very beginning. many of the newspapers printed statements from John Condon about his conversations with Cemetery John, and some papers even included small portions of the text from the ransom notes. From these, shoenfeld was able to glean several important facts. First, there were no threats against the child in either the notes or the statements of Cemetery John. in fact, both John and the notes stressed a strong desire to return the child unharmed. shoenfeld felt this was contradictory to the expected behavior of a kidnapper. usually threats to the kidnap victim are made to force the quick payment of ransom. shoenfeld’s conclusion was that the kidnapper was an amateur and not a professional criminal.3 second, Cemetery John had asked if he would burn if the baby was dead. shoenfeld took careful note of the tense of the statement. This was not a discussion about the future. rather, this was a clear statement that the baby was dead and John was concerned about the consequences. Combining this statement with the lack of threats against the child, dr. shoenfeld concluded that the child was dead and had died sometime prior to the meeting in Woodlawn Cemetery.4 Finally, the actions of Cemetery John were very important. even though he was suspicious that the police were involved, John spoke with Condon on a park bench for nearly an hour. at st. raymond’s Cemetery, during the second meeting, John agreed on his own to reduce the ransom demand from $70,000 to $50,000. shoenfeld felt that Cemetery John’s behavior proved that he was not the gobetween for any type of organized gang. Gangsters tended to use go-betweens who knew little or nothing of the crime, plans, or inner workings of the gang. Further, the operative for a group of gangsters would not stick around for an hour or negotiate the ransom demand. he or she is supposed to get the money and get out. Based on John’s behavior, shoenfeld concluded that John was not involved in organized crime and was acting alone.5 The doctor recognized that he was basing his conclusions on hearsay information from the newspapers. to support his hypothesis, he would need to see the original ransom notes and confirm the statements and actions of Cemetery John. once again, lieutenant Finn wrote to Colonel schwartzkopf requesting copies of the notes. he explained that the notes were not for him, but were to aid dr. shoenfeld in performing a psychiatric analysis of the case. schwartzkopf granted the request, but only in part. shoenfeld, but not Finn, would be allowed to view photostatic cop-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Shoenfeld and Koehler

--

/355348t

| 131 |

ies of the notes. obviously, while the doctor’s theory was considered useful, no assistance was desired from the new york police department. a few days later, Capt. russell snook delivered the copies to shoenfeld’s office. The doctor could keep the notes until he was finished. however, before he finished his formal written report, there would be a conference at the englewood estate, where he would deliver his preliminary opinions to members of the new Jersey state police and Charles lindbergh himself. dr. shoenfeld asked if lieutenant Finn or Captain oliver could join him. he was politely refused.6 The conference was held during the first week of november. shoenfeld reports that, in addition to lindbergh and members of the state police, special agent Frank J. Wilson, the head of the intelligence unit of the internal revenue Bureau for the united states department of Justice, was also present.7 using enlarged photostatic copies of the ransom notes, shoenfeld explained his preliminary theory. neither lindbergh nor the officers expressed any opinions. They just listened stoically before telling shoenfeld he could keep the copies he was given until he finalized his report.8 after the meeting, shoenfeld was driven home by special agent Wilson. during the ride, the two men spoke about the case. Wilson said he tended to agree with the lone kidnapper theory as his investigation into underworld activities had come up empty.9 Their conversation eventually turned to Jafsie Condon.10 Both men felt that Condon was generally honest and telling the truth. Wilson was concerned, though, that a jury would not understand Condon’s personality once the guilty party went to trial. shoenfeld went a step further, asserting that “if dr. Condon were alive when the perpetrator of the crime came to trial, his age, coupled with a past history of eccentricities, would make his testimony extremely vulnerable to attack by the defense on the basis of mental competency.”11 over the next week, shoenfeld reviewed the ransom notes in careful detail and prepared a report outlining his conclusions about the nationality, area of residence, occupation, and mental and physical characteristics of Cemetery John. on november 10, 1932, shoenfeld submitted his findings to Colonel schwartzkopf. unbeknownst to the Colonel, lieutenant Finn got his copy first. shoenfeld concluded that Cemetery John was the kidnapper, killer, and writer of the ransom notes. he was a German immigrant who was still confused by the english language. The grammatical structure and errors in the ransom notes were legitimate mistakes revealing that John still thought in the German language.12 John likely lived in the German section of the Bronx. shoenfeld noted that most immigrants lived in communities of their own countrymen. The two largest German communities were in manhattan and the Bronx. since the kidnapper clearly read the Bronx Home News, a small publication limited to the Bronx, it was more likely that he lived in that area. John was likely a carpenter with mechanical skill. The kidnapper’s ladder was homemade and required clever and experienced planning. Furthermore, one of the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 132 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

ransom notes contained a sketch of the box for the money using proper dimensions, demonstrating mechanical aptitude. physically, John would be between thirty and forty years old and might even bear some resemblance to lindbergh in appearance. Concerning mental characteristics, shoenfeld believed that John considered himself omnipotent. his actual position in society would be rather low, and John would likely blame other people for denying him his proper place of honor and respect. he was jealous of lindbergh because he had been so revered while John had been left to toil in obscurity. This was probably the subconscious motive for the crime or at least the reason why lindbergh’s son was selected as the target. By taking the son of the great aviator, he would not only get the money he wanted, but would also demonstrate his superiority. shoenfeld also opined that John was very cautious and would be difficult to catch. he would rely on no one, having abnormal confidence in himself, and almost certainly would have committed the crime alone. if apprehended, he would never confess. to do so would be to admit defeat. his feelings of supremacy would never allow it. shoenfeld also felt that John might be suffering from a condition he described as “dementia praecox,” which is more commonly referred to as schizophrenia. as such, it is very likely that John was previously a patient in a mental institution or possibly imprisoned without his mental condition being recognized.13 lieutenant Finn was extremely impressed with shoenfeld’s conclusions. unfortunately, in an area the size of the Bronx, there could be hundreds of people fitting this general description. to be effective, they needed to narrow their search. dr. shoenfeld provided one more clue that could possibly point to John’s residence in more detail. in the note given to dr. Condon at st. raymond’s Cemetery, the kidnapper wrote, in part, “you will find the Boad between horseneck Beach and Gay head. . . .” examining this note with a magnifying glass, shoenfeld observed that “Gay head” had some slight changes. The doctor believed that the original words were “Gun hill” and subsequently changed. perhaps this referred to John’s general neighborhood. Gun hill road was a major road in the Bronx. in fact, Joseph perrone received a note from the kidnapper at the corner of Gun hill road and Knox place, and Woodlawn Cemetery was close by. Finn and shoenfeld took a large map of the Bronx and mapped out Gun hill road, Woodlawn and st. raymond cemeteries, and the various places mentioned in the ransom notes. looking at the residential streets in this general area, shoenfeld concluded that John most likely lived in the Williamsbridge section of the Bronx. lieutenant Finn now possessed a fairly good profile of the kidnapper and an idea of where he might live. The next step was to actually locate him. Finn was sure the best way to catch him was to follow the money. Finn was right, but it would take over a year and a half to confirm it.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Shoenfeld and Koehler

--

/355348t

| 133 |

The new Jersey state police were working on another angle—the kidnapper’s ladder. The troopers were convinced that this ladder was the key to the case. it was clearly homemade, but by someone with considerable skill. it was lightweight and folded up so as to be easily carried. While inappropriate for heavy-duty work, it was ideal for a one-time kidnapping, which required speed and stealth. early in the investigation, Colonel schwartzkopf sent small slivers of the wood from the ladder to the department of agriculture’s Forest laboratory in madison, Wisconsin, for analysis. in reply, he had received a report from arthur Koehler, the agency’s chief wood expert, which identified the type of wood as ponderosa pine, and announced the finding of foreign fibers of wool that could have been from the clothing of the kidnapper. arthur Koehler was well known as a wood expert. he graduated from the university of michigan with a B.s. in forestry and subsequently earned his m.s. degree in wood anatomy from the university of Wisconsin. he joined the united states Forest service and went to work at the Forest products laboratory in madison, Wisconsin in 1914. By the time he was asked to examine the slivers of the kidnapper’s ladder, Koehler was a division chief for the madison branch and was considered the foremost authority on wood in the united states, if not the world. after receiving the report, schwartzkopf had his own people examine the fibers. it was ultimately determined that the fibers belonged to woolen blankets, which the state police had placed over the ladder to protect it at the crime scene.14 embarrassed, schwartzkopf did not follow up with Koehler’s report. however, in February 1933, with the case at a virtual standstill, schwartzkopf, remembering the results Koehler achieved with just a sliver of wood, decided that it was worthwhile to allow him to examine the entire ladder. arrangements were made for mr. Koehler to come to new Jersey. When Koehler finally saw the ladder in its entirety, he was immediately able to reach several conclusions. The builder was clever and experienced with woodworking. The chisel and plane used in the ladder’s construction were dull, and the builder took little pride in his work. after reporting his preliminary findings, Koehler was permitted to take the ladder back to his laboratory in Wisconsin for a complete analysis. once back in Wisconsin, Koehler took the ladder apart for testing. There were eleven rungs, which he numbered 1 to 11, starting with the top rail, for easy reference. The six side rails were similarly numbered 12 to 17, starting with the left-hand bottom rail.15 each piece was meticulously measured and examined. using a microscope, Koehler determined the type of wood used in the ladder’s construction. a few of the side rails were made of southern pine while the others were douglas fir. The dowel pins were made of birch, and the rungs were made from ponderosa pine. in fact, eight of the rungs were cut from the same piece of wood and had marks from a dull hand-plane.16

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 134 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

arthur Koehler, the wood expert, with the ladder and the board taken from hauptmann’s attic.

of particular interest to Koehler was a piece of southern pine, now labeled “rail sixteen.” in addition to the holes from the nails that held the ladder together, there were four separate nail holes. obviously, this piece of wood had been used previously for something else. Koehler concluded that the kidnapper had probably run out of wood and used whatever was handy.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Shoenfeld and Koehler

--

/355348t

| 135 |

examining the rail more closely, Koehler noted that the holes were made with square construction nails, which were somewhat old-fashioned. There was no rust anywhere around the holes, meaning that the wood had probably been used indoors and away from the elements.17 The pattern of the nail marks was unusual. The distances varied, and two were at an angle. a third had a very sharp slant. Koehler considered rail sixteen an important clue. The odds of finding another board of southern pine with square nail holes in a similar pattern with identical slants and angles of the nail holes were nearly mathematically impossible. once a suspect was arrested, a search could be made for a board with similar nail holes.18 on march 8, 1933, arthur Koehler submitted his report to the new Jersey state police. temporarily suspending his examination of the ladder, he asked for permission to search the grounds of the hopewell estate and surrounding area to see if he could find identical pieces of wood. schwartzkopf gladly accepted the report, but was not completely sold on Koehler’s work. nonetheless, he assigned detectives Bornmann and deGaetano to assist him. over the next three months, Koehler and the detectives searched not only lindbergh’s property, but also buildings, outhouses, chicken coops, garages, shacks, and the properties of anyone even remotely associated with the case. The various searches did not turn up anything. during these three months, the lindberghs’ butler, olly Whateley, died after suffering a perforated ulcer. it was yet another misfortune for a family that had endured nothing but misery for over a year. Charles and anne had been living at englewood for some time with only the Whateleys staying at the sourland estate. after olly Whateley’s death, the lindberghs decided never to return to their little white house. instead, they donated it to the state of new Jersey for use as a home for wayward youth. in early June, Koehler informed Colonel schwartzkopf that he was ending his search of the hopewell countryside. instead, he intended to return to Wisconsin to continue his study of the ladder. reexamining the ladder with a microscope and magnifying glass, Koehler discovered a series of small grooves in the pieces of southern pine that made up the two bottom rails. he recognized them as the marks made by the knives of the planes from lumber mills. looking more closely, Koehler observed a distinct mark in the grooves caused by an imperfection in one of the knives from the lumber mill. Both rails had this mark because they were taken from the same original piece of southern pine. The marks on the wood were uniquely distinctive to the mill that cut them, like fingerprints.19 Koehler measured the spaces between the marks and photographed them. The pictures were then enlarged for better examination. By further studying these marks and doing some calculations of mill planers, Koehler concluded that the wood had been dressed or fed through the planing machine at a speed of 230 feet

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 136 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

per minute, a rate twice the usual speed of eastern mill planers, but consistent with the planers in the south.20 Finding the specific mill would be difficult and time consuming. Koehler started by referring to the Southern Lumberman’s Directory. Between new york and alabama, there were 1,598 mills. he would have to check them all.21 rather than go to every mill, he opted to write a letter to each one. The letter simply reported that he was looking for a planer that dressed wood, in particular southern pine, at 230 feet per minute. The planer also had to have six knives in its edge cutters and eight knives in its face cutters.22 over the next few weeks, Koehler received twenty-five positive responses, although he disqualified two because they did not deal with southern pine. to further narrow his prospects, Koehler asked the remaining twenty-three to send him samples for analysis.23 Various samples of wood were sent to Koehler with no results until he examined a one-by-four piece from the m. G. and J. J. dorn lumber Company in mcCormack, south Carolina. This piece of wood had been dressed at the precise speed and with the proper number of blades. The cuts were identical with only one difference. There was no sign of the blade defect.24 Koehler concluded that the difference was likely due to a sharpened or replaced blade. he wrote to the south Carolina mill asking for more samples and expressly requested samples of stock over two years old. The mill complied, but the new samples offered a fresh puzzle because some of the markings were different. realizing that he could not get the answers he needed in Wisconsin, Koehler traveled to south Carolina to examine the planer himself. a brief interview with Joseph J. dorn, the owner of the mill, gave Koehler the answer he sought. There had been a problem with the pulley system a few years back. The machine had a factory-installed pulley that caused the wood to be dressed too quickly. a replacement pulley was bought from a local hardware store, which resolved the problem. occasionally, the original pulley was used and this caused the varied markings on the different boards.25 Koehler asked to see wood dressed using the hardware store pulley. The appropriate modifications were made and a board was cut. The markings matched those on the kidnapper’s ladder precisely minus the grooves from the blade abnormality.26 Koehler learned that the company bought the hardware store pulley in september 1929. This meant that the wood in question must have been dressed sometime between september 1929 and march 1, 1932, the day of the kidnapping. a quick check of the company’s records during that time period revealed that forty-six shipments of southern pine were sent to twenty-five different lumberyards located north of the potomac river. There were others sent south, but Koehler decided he would check those only if the first twenty-five places were dead-ends.27

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Shoenfeld and Koehler

--

/355348t

| 137 |

over the next several months, Koehler, along with detective Bornmann, went to various lumberyards in new Jersey, Connecticut, massachusetts, and new york looking for a sample of wood with the proper plane marks and the extra mark from the defective blade. on november 19, 1933, Koehler and Bornmann went to the national lumber & millwork Company on White plains road in the Williamsbridge section of the Bronx. The foreman there confirmed that a shipment of southern pine from dorn lumber had arrived on december 1, 1931, just three months before the kidnapping.28 Koehler asked for a sample of the wood, but was disappointed to learn that all of the wood was sold. The only wood left had been used to build a storage bin for the company. at Koehler’s request, a sample was cut off of the storage bin. he examined the wood with his magnifying glass and quickly realized that he had a perfect match in every way. all of the cuts from the planers matched, and the distinctive mark from the defective blade was there as well. Koehler handed the sample to detective Bornmann and pronounced that some of the wood used to make the kidnapper’s ladder had come from this small lumberyard in the Bronx.29 Koehler and Bornmann asked to see the records of all the sales of this wood. it was now just a matter of time. each purchaser would be questioned and the kidnapper captured. unfortunately, this was not to be. The business did not offer credit, and all sales were cash only. no records were kept. Koehler was crushed. all of his hard work resulted in another dead-end. Bornmann was more optimistic. it was still a lead. The new york police would be asked to check out anyone associated with the lumberyard, especially carpenters. Koehler’s work had narrowed the search. now they were looking for an immigrant of German descent who had bought his lumber at the national lumber & millwork Company on White plains road and whose handwriting matched the ransom notes. arthur Koehler was not satisfied. since his search for the southern pine was over, he decided to study the rails made of douglas fir. perhaps he could track down the origins of those pieces of wood. he had already found one needle in a haystack, so why not try for two? Koehler and Bornmann would spend many months searching various lumberyards throughout new york, but would never determine where the douglas fir originated. during their search, on February 14, 1934, the two men went to the Cross, austin & ireland lumber Company on Gerard avenue and 149th street in the Bronx. They were working in the back office when two men walked in carrying a plywood panel they had selected from the stockyard and were met at the counter by alice murphy.30 The taller of the two men, described by murphy as wiry with sharp blue eyes, flat cheeks, and a pointed chin, asked her, in a German accent, how much it would cost to cut the plywood to a certain size. When ms. murphy told them the price was

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 138 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

forty cents, the man handed her a $10 gold note. she accepted it initially, but, because she had been warned about counterfeit bills, she called out to William reilly, the yard foreman for assistance.31 immediately the second man said, “never mind,” grabbed the gold note, and replaced it with forty cents in change. murphy would later describe the second man as five feet six inches tall, about 150 pounds, clean shaven with a dark complexion, and an abrupt manner. she also said he spoke fairly good english.32 to many, the description of the second man immediately brings forth an identification of isidor Fisch, a man whose involvement with the case has always been the subject of great controversy and will be discussed in subsequent chapters. The man could not have been mr. Fisch because he had returned to Germany three months before, on december 6, 1933, arriving on december 16 or 17. he never returned to the united states, and died of tuberculosis in march 1934.33 murphy gave the plywood to the foreman for proper cutting and started writing up the sales slip. When she announced that the job would take a few minutes, the men said they were in a hurry and could not wait. They would return later. murphy considered the whole matter to be rather odd. on a whim, she followed the men to their car and wrote down the license number.34 she would later report that the license number was 4u 13 41, which was the license number of a 1930 dodge belonging to Bruno richard hauptmann, the man later convicted for murdering the lindbergh baby.35 Throughout the investigation of the lindbergh kidnapping, the media presented many fantastic stories claiming to have inside sources. Consequently, most historians have rejected alice murphy’s story as utter nonsense. Within the files on this case maintained by the new york City municipal archives, which were largely the files of the Bronx County district attorney’s office, there is an interesting document about the size of a credit card receipt. in the top right corner, there is an identifying mark noting it as “ex 3 district attorneys off. Bx. Co 10–1–34.” There are initials from a stenographer next to this marking. handwritten in the center of this paper is the following: 17 — panel 24 × 48 — .40 4u – 13 – 41

it would therefore appear that this document was presented as exhibit Three before the Bronx County grand jury on october 1, 1934, about two weeks after hauptmann’s arrest. There is no way to determine whether ms. murphy wrote this license number on February 14, 1934, or some time after hauptmann’s arrest on september 19, 1934. since there was never a trial on the separate new york extortion charges,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Shoenfeld and Koehler

--

/355348t

| 139 |

this documentary evidence, as well as the testimony of alice murphy and William reilly, were never tested. This evidence, which has never been published in any book on this subject, tends to support this account.36 as the Bronx County district attorney’s office felt confident enough to present this evidence before the grand jury, ms. murphy’s account seems plausible. The evidence is not definitive and is insufficient to reach an absolute conclusion. nevertheless, if true, one must be startled by the idea that arthur Koehler and detective Bornmann were working in a back office looking for the kidnapper of the lindbergh baby while he was only a few feet away, just out of their sight.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 140 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 16 |

The trail of Gold

While Koehler and Bornmann scoured the eastern united states investigating lumberyards, the new york City police, headed by lieutenant Finn, were following a trail of gold notes. With few, if any, substantial leads, Finn realized that the best way to capture the kidnapper was to catch him spending the loot. Back in april 1932, the united states treasury circulated thousands of fiftyseven-page pamphlets to banks throughout the world. These pamphlets contained the serial numbers of every bill in the ransom payment. The banks were instructed to be on the lookout for any of these bills, but were not told why. The first bill from the ransom money to surface was a $20 bill. it was deposited on monday, april 4, 1932, just two days after the ransom was paid, at the amsterdam branch of the east river savings Bank in manhattan. it was deposited in an account in the name of david marcus. This lead fizzled after marcus proved himself to be above suspicion.1 For the remainder of 1932, a total of twenty-five ransom bills turned up at various banks.2 each time the police received a report, they investigated but came up emptyhanded. inevitably, the bill would be traced to a person with an alibi and no obvious involvement with the case. a great deal of time and manpower was expended. since the banks had not been notified of the real reason for the request, and the list itself was cumbersome to use, tellers were not particularly diligent in checking bills. it can never be determined just how much of the ransom money circulated through various banks only to be redistributed or destroyed. to make the tellers more interested and industrious, police officers visited various banks throughout new york City informing tellers of the real purpose behind the pamphlet. Colonel lindbergh even offered a $2 reward to every teller who found one of the bills. The efforts of lindbergh and the police did not have an immediate impact. The first report of a ransom bill with any lead at all did not occur until march 3, 1933. on that date, a $10 gold note was spotted by a teller at the Guaranty trust Company, located at 180 Broadway in new york City.3 | 140 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Trail of Gold

--

/355348t

| 141 |

The police traced the bill to the united Cigar store. The owner told detectives he received the money on march 1, 1933, between noon and 1 p.m. For the first time, the police obtained a description of the spender: approximately six feet tall, forty years old, with a long thin face and light complexion. he wore a soft hat and dark clothing.4 With the exception of height, which can be deceptive, the man sounded an awful lot like the descriptions of Cemetery John given by John Condon and the man described by cab driver Joseph perrone. it would not be the last time detectives would hear this description. The police would get another major break approximately one month later from, of all people, president Franklin delano roosevelt. The united states went off the gold standard with the passage of the emergency Banking relief act. roosevelt, in one of his fireside chats, called upon residents to turn in their gold right away. While many followed the president’s advice, most did not. in response, and at the request of the secretary of the treasury, roosevelt issued an executive order on april 5, 1933, requiring that all gold coins and currency valued at more than $100 be exchanged for regular currency at federal national banks no later than may 1, 1933. Failure to comply with this directive could result in a hefty fine or ten years in federal prison.5 lieutenant Finn and his detectives were thrilled. This would make gold notes rather scarce and very noticeable. since almost two-thirds of the lindbergh ransom was in gold notes, the chances of catching the kidnapper were greatly improved. The police contacted the employees of new york City’s federal national banks and asked them to check the serial numbers of all gold certificates they received. Finn was certain that they were tightening the noose around the kidnapper. about a week before roosevelt’s deadline, the police received calls from the Federal reserve Bank of new york City. a total of $240, all ransom money, composed of twenty-four $10 gold notes, had been found. an investigation revealed that the money came from a deposit of $153,500 made by the Chemical Bank to the Federal reserve. The police were able to determine that the deposit likely occurred on april 28, 1933. unfortunately, despite the prior pep talk from the police, none of the tellers at Chemical Bank could give a description of any of the depositors.6 on may 1, 1933, the day of roosevelt’s deadline, someone exchanged $2,980 in gold notes at the Federal reserve Bank. The breakdown of the deposit was one $20 certificate and the remainder in tens.7 all of the bills were ransom money. once again, the teller, James p. estey, could not offer any kind of description of the depositor. There was a clue, though. Bank officials located the deposit slip, which had a name and address handwritten on it: “J. J. Faulkner 537 W 149.”8 Believing they might finally have the name and address of the kidnapper, police rushed to the east side of manhattan. There they discovered that the address was an apartment complex known as plymouth apartments, but nobody named J. J. Faulkner lived there.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 142 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

unwilling to give up on this lead, the police conducted a detailed investigation of the address as well as its current and former residents. detectives reviewed records of the building, contacted the local post office to obtain the lists of all people living within several blocks, and interviewed past and current mail carriers, all without success.9 While no J. J. Faulkner was found to have ever resided at this address, it was learned that a woman named Jane Faulkner rented apartment #64 twelve years earlier. Jane Faulkner died in 1923 and her husband, James Faulkner, died years before. mrs. Faulkner had a son, harry, who died in 1917, and a daughter, Jane emily, who also lived in the apartment.10 according to the apartment records, Jane emily lived with her mother and husband, Carl oswin Giessler, in apartment #64 from 1921 to 1923 and continued to live there for another two years after her mother’s death in 1923. in 1925, the couple moved to larchmont, new york, and were residing there as of 1932.11 The FBi conducted an extremely thorough background investigation of Jane emily Faulkner, her husband, their son, Carl donald, and her sister-in-law, harriet Chapman. handwriting samples were secured and compared to the deposit slip by dr. Wilmer t. souder and later by albert d. osborn. all of the suspects were cleared except for Carl donald Giessler. initially, souder made a tentative identification. after he and osborn reviewed further samples, no definitive conclusion could be made. There was insufficient handwriting on the deposit slip or in Carl’s samples to be certain.12 The similarities of Giessler’s handwriting could not be ignored. Furthermore, there were two interesting coincidences uncovered by the FBi that heightened suspicion. apparently, Carl was friends with a man named William Krippendorf, a German rug salesman. mr. Krippendorf was friends with ralph hacker, who was the son-in-law of John “Jafsie” Condon. to make matters worse, an examination of Giessler’s tax returns revealed that from 1929 to 1932, Carl lived at 3060 decatur street, one block away from 2974 decatur, the home of John Condon.13 The Giesslers, both father and son, were placed under surveillance by the new york police department and various phone lines related to their business were tapped.14 Carl donald Giessler and both of his parents were extensively questioned by Colonel schwartzkopf and lieutenant Keaton of the new Jersey state police, and Captain oliver and inspector lyons of the new york police department. They were later interrogated again by agent Frank Wilson of the FBi.15 all three police agencies concluded that the Giesslers were reputable people leading normal lives. They answered all questions put to them without hesitation, accounted for their whereabouts on dates significant to the investigation, and “manifested a desire to cooperate and satisfactorily explain all matters of importance.”16 Carl donald Giessler even provided the police with a three-page letter written by him in the last two years. after reviewing this lengthy handwriting sample, dr. souder concluded that Carl’s handwriting did not match the deposit slip.17

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Trail of Gold

--

/355348t

| 143 |

as a last desperate attempt to link any of the Giesslers to the case, the police brought in Joseph perrone, the cab driver who was given a note for dr. Condon on the night of the first meeting with Cemetery John in Woodlawn Cemetery. perrone did not identify either of the men.18 The police were forced to conclude that the Giesslers were not involved with the kidnapping. unwilling to accept that the name Faulkner was coincidental, the police decided to take a look at current and past employees of plymouth apartments. While reviewing new york criminal files, it was learned that a former building superintendent named duane William Bacon had a lengthy criminal record. mr. Bacon was no longer an employee, having been fired on april 15, 1932, for dishonesty, inefficiency, and borrowing money from tenants.19 of particular interest was Bacon’s physical description. he was thirty-seven years old and of German descent. he stood five feet nine inches tall and weighed approximately 160 pounds. his hair was dark blonde and his eyes blue. his face was thin and his eyes deep set.20 he obviously fit the general description of Cemetery John and would need to be found. on november 13, 1933, the police located duane Bacon and brought him in for questioning. he was living at 3444 Knox place in the Bronx, just a few blocks from st. raymond’s Cemetery.21 Captain oliver and lieutenant Finn questioned Bacon for hours. he was able to provide an alibi for most of the significant dates and answered the detectives’ questions without hesitation. officers were sent to verify each and every statement offered by the suspect, a chore that lasted several months. much to the chagrin of lieutenant Finn, Bacon’s story checked out. They had reached another dead-end.22 to this day, the J. J. Faulkner mystery has never been resolved. authors have made various claims concerning Faulkner’s true identity, but without any compelling or convincing evidence.23 it is extremely unlikely that Faulkner will ever be unmasked. however, the failure to identify J. J. Faulkner does not prove or disprove the guilt of Bruno richard hauptmann, though it might suggest a possible accomplice. While the Faulkner leads were being investigated, more bills from the ransom money trickled in. over the next six months, nine more bills were found.24 unfortunately, no significant leads developed from these finds. as the money showed up around new york City, lieutenant Finn began to notice some patterns. Whenever a physical description was given of the person passing the money, it always matched Cemetery John right down to a German accent.25 second, many of the bills were folded in an unusual manner. The bill was folded in half lengthwise and then over twice into a small rectangle. When unfolded, the creases formed eight sections. The areas in which the money was spent were also revealing. using black pins for $5 bills, red for $10, and green for $20, lieutenant Finn charted the locations where the kidnapper was spending his money. at the beginning, the suspect had been careful, spending his money in various places. more recently, he had become careless.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 144 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The pins lined lexington and Third avenues in upper manhattan and yorkville, a known German neighborhood. Finn was convinced that the kidnapper was spending his money in areas near where he lived. on november 27, 1933, $5 from the ransom money was found at the Corn exchange Bank. police traced the bill to a deposit from loew’s sheridan Theater in Greenwich Village. They interviewed the employees of the theater, including an attractive young woman named Cecille Barr. ms. Barr remembered the bill and the man who spent it quite well. The night before, around 9:30 p.m., she was counting out her cash and receipts when a small, folded bill was tossed on the counter in front of her. annoyed at having money tossed at her, she looked up and saw a man wearing a dark suit and slouch hat. she unfolded the $5 bill while the man just stared at her. “Well, what do you want?” she demanded. When the man seemed confused, Cecille told him there were three different prices for tickets. The man quickly scanned the price list and asked for a forty-cent ticket. she made change and the man left. she never noticed whether he entered the theater.26 When asked for a more detailed description, ms. Barr described the man as thirty to thirty-five years old, five feet eight or five feet nine inches tall, 155 to 160 pounds, slender build, clean-shaven, light complexion, thin face, light brown hair, high cheekbones, and broad shoulders. she also said he was “apparently american.”27 Great attention has been given to her statement that he was “apparently” an american. This is a red herring. The man spoke only two words and ms. Barr did not notice an accent, though an accent might not be noticeable when a person softly speaks only two words. some months earlier, the police had a well-known artist draw a sketch of Cemetery John based upon the descriptions give by John Condon and Joseph perrone. Both men thought the sketch bore a remarkable resemblance to John. since the description given by Cecille Barr was quite similar, the police showed this portrait to her. Without hesitation, she identified Cemetery John as the man who had annoyed her the night before. The police now had another witness who could identify their suspect. unfortunately, this would not help them actually locate their quarry. For the next two months, bills continued to surface throughout the Bronx. each find was meticulously investigated, but without success. in an attempt to further their search, the police offered a $5 reward for anyone who turned in a bill from the ransom money. lieutenant Finn played a hunch and sent letters to numerous gas stations, advising them to be on the lookout for anyone passing gold notes. Finn knew that the kidnapper probably bought his gasoline somewhere near his home. This hunch would later pay dividends. suddenly, early in 1934, the ransom money stopped appearing. police theorized that the excessive press coverage of the investigation caused the kidnapper to be-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Trail of Gold

--

/355348t

| 145 |

come nervous. With so many newspapers throughout the city, almost every discovery of ransom money was publicized somewhere. if John read the papers, he would have seen a detailed listing of his attempts to spend the loot. it was not surprising that he would lie low for a while rather than risk capture. over the next few weeks, lieutenant Finn and his officers contacted various newspapers and extracted their promise not to print any more information about the ransom money. it was one of the few times in the case when the media was helpful in any way. even with the press silent, John did not spend his money. he had clearly been frightened and was proceeding cautiously. spring dragged to summer and the police continued to wait. When august arrived, the police were still waiting and hoping that ransom money would surface again. unfortunately, what surfaced was John F. Condon. dr. Condon was riding a bus one afternoon. While traveling south on Williamsbridge road, Jafsie saw a man in workman’s clothes walking in the opposite direction toward a strip of woods. it was Cemetery John. Condon handled the matter as only he could. he jumped up and shouted at the top of his lungs for the driver to stop the bus. When the driver looked at him curiously, Condon identified himself as Jafsie and repeated his demand. The driver pulled over as soon as he could, but had to cross pelham parkway first. By the time Condon got off the bus, John had disappeared into the woods. Condon immediately found a pay phone and called the new york City police and the FBi to report his sighting. soon the police were searching the area, and the incident made front-page news throughout the city.28 For lieutenant Finn, Condon’s latest media caper could not have come at a worse time. huge media coverage might cause John to be more cautious or even leave the area. The head of the FBi, J. edgar hoover, was openly skeptical of Jafsie’s claim. Given Jafsie’s eccentric behavior and known propensity for attracting attention to himself, law enforcement was cynical. The fears that Cemetery John would disappear did not last long. in september, ransom money appeared once again. Gold certificates were traced to a grocery store, two vegetable markets, and a shoe store. in each case, a small purchase was made with a $10 or $20 gold note. none of the clerks could identify the man, but their general descriptions matched Cemetery John. The police were ready to follow the trail of gold and hoped they would soon make the arrest of the century.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 146 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 17 |

Bruno richard hauptmann

on september 18, 1934, lieutenant Finn received a phone call from special agent sisk of the Federal Bureau of investigation. another bill from the ransom money had been discovered at the Corn exchange Bank in the Bronx. expecting another wild-goose chase, Finn grabbed lieutenant Keaten and went to investigate. The bill turned out to be a $10 gold certificate.1 unfortunately, none of the tellers had any idea who deposited it. Finn examined the note and observed some writing on the back of the bill. neatly written on the edge was “4u-13-41.” Thinking this might be a license plate number, Finn asked the clerks if any of their depositors for the day had included gas stations. he was told that three stations had made deposits. one of the depositors was the Warner-Quinlan gas station on the corner of lexington avenue and 127th street on the eastern fringe of upper manhattan. The station was managed by Walter lyle. When shown the gold certificate, lyle immediately told them how he had obtained it. The previous saturday, lyle was on duty along with his assistant John lyons. around ten o’clock, a blue 1930 dodge drove into the station. The driver requested, in a thick German accent, five gallons of ethyl. as lyons polished the windshield and lyle filled the gas tank, the driver stepped out of the vehicle. he was white and stood approximately five feet eleven inches tall. he was about thirty-two years old, weighed about 165 pounds, and had a fair complexion.2 The man paid his bill with a $10 gold certificate pulled from an envelope in his pocket. as lyle looked at the note, the man asked if there was a problem. lyle politely responded that he did not see many gold certificates any more. The man said, “i have only about a hundred left.”3 lyle looked at the man for a moment and gave him his change. as the strange man drove away, lyle decided to write down the license plate number just in case the bill turned out to be counterfeit. little did he know that this would break the lindbergh case wide open.

| 146 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Bruno Richard Hauptmann

--

/355348t

| 147 |

Finn called the department of motor Vehicles and ordered a check on the license plate number. a few minutes later, he was informed that the plate was on a 1930 dodge belonging to richard hauptmann of 1279 east 222nd street, Bronx, new york.4 Finally, the police had a name and address. Before making an arrest, the police decided to check their suspect’s background. The dmV records revealed that hauptmann was thirty-five years old, five feet ten inches, 180 pounds, with blond hair and blue eyes, and was born in Germany. his description matched that of Cemetery John. no criminal record for this man existed in the united states. records were ordered from Germany, but it would be some time before they arrived. The officers also discussed the methods they would use for the capture. once again, dr. shoenfeld proved very helpful. it was his opinion that barging into the accused’s home would prove foolhardy, as evidence could be hastily hidden or destroyed. additionally, shoenfeld felt confident that if hauptmann was arrested away from his home, he would likely have some of the ransom money on him as a reminder of his great victory over Charles lindbergh.5 since the police needed more evidence, they decided to follow the doctor’s advice. That night, the new york police department, the new Jersey state police, and the FBi staked out hauptmann’s home. The house was two stories, and the suspect lived on the second floor with his wife and one-year-old child. a small wooden garage sat on the east portion of the property near the intersection of east 222nd street and needham avenue. hauptmann’s home was only a mile from Van Cordlandt park, Woodlawn Cemetery, and dr. Condon’s home. it was about four miles from st. raymond’s Cemetery. in fact, the house was perfectly located between all of the hot spots in the Bronx investigation. There was no sign of hauptmann that evening. around 1:30 a.m., it was decided that surveillance should be discontinued until the following morning. however, special agent sisk of the FBi ordered agent seery to pretend to go to the subway and circle back to continue the surveillance without the knowledge of the new york City police or the new Jersey state troopers.6 sisk would rejoin the surveillance around 3:00 a.m. This kind of subterfuge among the three police agencies demonstrates their adversarial relationship. each department wanted to be the one to make the arrest and get the glory. in fact, there are numerous reports prepared by J. edgar hoover that are critical of the new Jersey state police and the new york police department. These were drafted to try to humiliate the two departments and were not always based upon facts or evidence. some lindbergh researchers use these reports to support their conclusions of hauptmann’s innocence. some do so ignorantly, while others do so maliciously and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 148 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

without regard for truth and accuracy. one must be very careful about accepting anything written about the case by the FBi from the time of the arrest and thereafter. most of the information concerning background investigations of various individuals involved with the case is fine and without distortion. however, FBi records offering commentary on the evidence against Bruno richard hauptmann should be read with a skeptical eye and accepted only if corroborated. around 7:15 a.m. the following morning, officers from the new york police department and new Jersey state police resumed the surveillance. The FBi’s cloak-anddagger tactics from the prior evening did not go unnoticed and were certainly not appreciated. a few minutes before 9:00 a.m., Bruno richard hauptmann stepped out of his house and headed for the garage. he backed his car out the garage, carefully locked the garage door, and drove away. The officers started their cars and slowly followed their suspect, hoping he might be caught in the act of spending ransom money. The procession continued, averaging nearly forty miles an hour, until they reached park avenue. Then, right in front of 4227 park avenue, hauptmann was stopped by a car driven by detective Wallace. Though it had been the officers’ intention to watch hauptmann during the day, lieutenant Finn was concerned that the suspect might be lost in heavy traffic.7 once hauptmann was pulled over, detective Wallace jumped into his car and jabbed his gun into the suspect’s ribs. hauptmann was then yanked from the car, frisked, and handcuffed. a wallet was found in hauptmann’s back left pants pocket. inside, lieutenant Keaten found $26. among the bills was a $20 gold note that was quickly determined to be a part of the lindbergh ransom. lieutenant Finn photographed the bill at the scene.8 it has been alleged by some that the gold certificate found in hauptmann’s possession was folded in the same manner as many of the previously discovered bills.9 This is a very important point because it would directly tie hauptmann to the money significantly earlier than he would later admit. unfortunately, none of the arrest reports from any of the officers state whether the bill was folded or not. to answer this question requires examination of the photograph of the $20 gold certificate taken at the scene. The photo is much too dark to discern any crease marks. enlargements of the photo are also too dark to see any creases. Fortunately, the new Jersey state police museum and archives has enlarged negatives of the photo. a quick examination of these enlarged negatives reveals the creases caused by this method of folding. These enlarged negatives prove without question that, at some time prior to the picture being taken, the $20 gold certificate was folded in the same manner as the earlier bills.10 lloyd Gardner alleges in his book that these creases are very common in circulated bills.11 however, take a crisp new bill and fold it in the same manner, i.e., once

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Bruno Richard Hauptmann

--

/355348t

| 149 |

lengthwise and then in half twice, and keep it folded for a few minutes. Then open the bill and examine the creases and eight sections you have created. once you have put this to memory, take a look at your money over the next few months and see how many bills have the exact same creases and sections. you will find few, if any, that match exactly. The pattern is highly unusual. There still remains a question as to exactly when the bill found on hauptmann was folded. some might say it was done by the police to further frame hauptmann. This seems unlikely. if the police were to go to the trouble of folding the bill themselves to create evidence, why was it not written down in the police reports as being a folded bill? The police would not take the time to fabricate evidence and then not mention the incriminating item in a report. Conversely, if lieutenant Finn did observe the $20 folded in that manner, he would have certainly mentioned it in his report. it is important to understand that not all of the discovered ransom money was folded. There are various descriptions and accounts of Cemetery John spending his money. some accounts report the spender taking a folded bill from the watch pocket of his suit vest before giving it to a clerk or teller. on the day hauptmann was arrested, he was wearing a gray double-breasted suit with a blue shirt and blue tie. Various photographs taken on the day of his arrest reveal that he was not wearing a vest. it can therefore be concluded that the gold certificate was not folded when discovered by the police. however, it had been folded previously. hauptmann likely kept money folded in his vest pocket, probably to keep it separate from his other cash. Because vest pockets are rather small, the bill was folded. When he was not wearing a suit vest, he kept his bills in his wallet. This particular bill was probably kept in a vest pocket earlier, maybe the day before. That day, since he was not wearing a suit vest, he unfolded the bill and put it in his wallet. When the police found it, it was not folded, but still had the creases in the bill unique to this type of folding.12 While the police were frisking him, hauptmann demanded to know what was going on. once the gold certificate was found, the police told him the money was counterfeit and demanded to know where he had gotten it. hauptmann calmly explained that he had collected gold certificates because he was fearful of inflation. he had saved quite a few, but the police now had his last bill. The police asked hauptmann if he had spent a $10 gold certificate at the WarnerQuinlan gas station and told the attendant he had another hundred bills. he admitted spending the money and making the boast. he also acknowledged that he had just lied to the police about the $20 gold certificate in his wallet and did have a hundred more at home in a tin box. hauptmann was taken to a police car and driven back to his home. during the trip, he was questioned about personal information. The police made no mention of the lindbergh kidnapping.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 150 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

While her husband was being stopped and arrested, anna hauptmann was busy in the backyard playing with her son manfried, whom she lovingly called Bubi. she noticed a man in a suit approaching from needham avenue. The man flashed a badge and demanded to know her name. she gave her name and was abruptly told that she needed to go upstairs and answer a few questions. anna agreed, but insisted that she be allowed to find someone to watch her son. The officer waited as anna hastily asked a downstairs neighbor to watch Bubi. only then did mrs. hauptmann go with the officer to her apartment. she was horrified to find police ransacking her home. she walked into the bedroom and saw her husband sitting on the bed. he was handcuffed to an officer. panicking, she screamed at her husband to tell her what he had done. in some accounts, hauptmann told anna that the police were there because of a gambling problem.13 other versions claim that hauptmann simply said nothing was wrong and would not say anything further.14 Given the discrepancies, there is really no way to know for certain exactly what was said. as the search continued, one of the officers approached Bruno and demanded to know where the hundred or so gold certificates were. hauptmann calmly retrieved a small metal box and opened the combination lock. inside were six $20 gold coins, $120 in all. There were no gold certificates. The officers were furious and demanded to know the location of the gold certificates. hauptmann flatly denied having any more gold in any form. hauptmann was roughly shoved to the bed and for the first time accused of extorting money from Charles lindbergh.15 remaining completely calm and showing no signs of shock or surprise, Bruno said he knew nothing about any ransom payment. The initial search of hauptmann’s apartment turned up only a few minor clues. The police found a pair of new black suede shoes, a pile of hudson seal skins, numerous notebooks with German writing, several maps of new Jersey, and an expensive pair of German field glasses.16 hauptmann was asked about some of the items. he openly admitted buying the shoes for anna with a gold certificate. he would later repeat this admission during a subsequent interrogation.17 When shown the seal skins, hauptmann stated that he had been dealing with furs for nearly two years. as for the binoculars, his only response was, “i am a lover of nature.”18 Frustrated with the lack of cooperation, the police continued their search while hauptmann sat on the bed and anna waited in the hallway. agent sisk, carefully watching from a distance, noticed that hauptmann kept looking out the window whenever it seemed no one was looking at him. sisk glanced out the window himself and saw the garage with a wire running from it to the house. he demanded to know what the wire was. hauptmann ex-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Bruno Richard Hauptmann

--

/355348t

| 151 |

plained that it was a burglar alarm. By pressing a button near his bed, a bright light turned on in the garage.19 sisk stared at the man for a moment before making his accusation. “is that where you have the money?” hauptmann remained calm, replying, “no. i have no money.”20 sisk immediately went to the garage along with inspector lyons and lieutenant Keaten. The garage was full of various junk. The floor was built of heavy planks, and the men noticed that two of them were loose. They pried them up and found dirt that appeared to have been recently disturbed. after digging about a foot, they found a metal jar. expecting a major find, the police were disappointed to find only a few inches of water. While sisk and the others were digging, other officers were interviewing the landlord, pauline rauch. she said that hauptmann had given her some gold certificates a few days earlier as a partial payment of rent for september. she retrieved two of the bills. They were indeed gold certificates and were also part of the ransom money.21 of additional interest, pauline claimed that hauptmann had paid the rent with gold certificates as early as nine months prior (January 1934).22 This is a very important accusation as it ties Bruno richard hauptmann to the money significantly earlier than he would later admit. not long thereafter, the police took Bruno out of the apartment and to a waiting car. anna watched helplessly from the front lawn, begging to know where they were taking her husband. most of the officers ignored her. one was kind enough to tell her that Bruno was being taken to the Greenwich street station. anna barely had time to grieve before she was taken into custody as well.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 152 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 18 |

The interrogation Begins

on the way to the precinct, the police made one stop. They brought hauptmann to the Central savings Bank so that he could open his safe deposit box. They hoped that some of the ransom money was hidden there. unfortunately, there were only various documents, which were seized for later review.1 upon arrival at the station, hauptmann was partially booked, but not formally charged. his fingerprints were taken and, according to FBi documents, he was photographed.2 since the actual booking photo shows the date as september 21, 1934, the report must be in error. hauptmann may have been fingerprinted on september 19, but his booking was not completed until two days later. additionally, unbeknownst to hauptmann, the police seized his car. They brought it to an impound yard and thoroughly searched it. They swept particles of dust and other debris from various parts of the car. subsequent laboratory analysis was negative for any connection to the lindbergh kidnapping, such as blood, hair, or fibers. This should not have been surprising to the police as the crime was committed nearly two-and-a-half years earlier. presumably, the car would have been cleaned at least once during that time. The interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann officially began at 3:00 p.m. on september 19, 1934. The officers present for the questioning were: inspector lyons, Colonel schwartzkopf, Captain lamb, lieutenant Keaten, sergeant Wallace, special agent sisk, special agent leslie, and detective Wallace.3 over the first hour of interrogation, hauptmann answered questions about his background. he was born in saxony, Germany, in 1899 to mr. and mrs. herman hauptmann. he was educated, trained as a carpenter’s apprentice for a year, and worked for three years as a machinist for a man named heinrich sieler. When World War i broke out, hauptmann joined the German infantry, serving until the signing of the armistice. he was gassed and slightly wounded during the war.4 after the war, Bruno got a job as a machinist in the Wiedentz Coal mine. he failed to mention that he was fired from that job when he was found with stolen coal.5 over the next three years, hauptmann went through various jobs and helped his mother, | 152 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Interrogation Begins

--

/355348t

| 153 |

The booking photograph of Bruno richard hauptmann taken on september 21, 1934.

who still lived in Germany. The police did not yet know about his criminal record in Germany, and Bruno did not mention it. hauptmann was asked how and when he came to america. he told the police that he entered the country in 1923 as a stowaway aboard a ship he identified as Washington.6 What hauptmann told them was technically true. What he did not tell them was that this was his third attempt to illegally enter the united states. There are records of his deportation hearing, which took place on July 14, 1923, at ellis island, new york. hauptmann was caught on board the ss Hanover during the fifth day of a voyage from Bremen, Germany, to new york. When found, he had neither money nor a ticket. hauptmann identified himself as Karl pellmier, though the official records do list Bruno richard hauptmann as an alias. during his sworn testimony before the Board of special inquiry, hauptmann admitted being a stowaway, but denied knowing that it was against the law to do so. he even claimed he was going to reimburse the shipping company at a later date. (When he successfully stowed away on a later attempt, he declined to reimburse the company.) hauptmann also admitted to a prior conviction for larceny, claiming it was his only crime.7 at the conclusion of the hearing, the panel unanimously concluded that “pellmier” (later spelled in other documents as “pellmeier”) was “a stowaway” and “a person likely to become a public charge, not having a properly visaed passport, and as one who admits the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude.”8 Though deported, he eventually immigrated illegally to the united states on the second of two subsequent attempts. under furthering questioning, hauptmann admitted that, after finally getting into

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 154 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

the country, he was taken in by a German man named Fred aldinger. according to his exact answers during the interrogation, he simply met aldinger on amsterdam avenue who kindly agreed to let the stranger live with his mother, no questions asked.9 Frankly, this story seems dubious. during the depression, it is doubtful someone would take in a complete stranger who had neither job nor money. it is even stranger that aldinger allowed a man he knew absolutely nothing about to live with his own mother. according to hauptmann, he lived with mrs. aldinger for about a year and a half. While there, he worked in a small restaurant near the south Ferry, in Washburn’s Wire Factory on 118th street repairing machines, and at several small carpentry jobs.10 in 1925, he joined the carpenters’ union. Through the union, he worked at numerous locations, several of which were of great interest to the police. First, around Christmas of 1925 or 1926, hauptmann worked on a bungalow in lakewood, new Jersey.11 This was only about fifty miles from hopewell, the scene of the crime. hauptmann further claimed to have returned to lakewood on at least six occasions. apparently, a friend of his, harry lempke, bought a piece of land about six miles from lakewood and set up a chicken farm. hauptmann went there to help and later to visit and hunt.12 another job of interest to the police was a carpentry job on a house near Van Cordlandt park.13 This was the location where Condon and Cemetery John had their lengthy chat. hauptmann also admitted working for the national lumber Company in the Bronx. he bought lumber there as well and even acknowledged buying wood in 1932.14 While not completely damning, this information was important because arthur Koehler had already traced some of the lumber from the kidnapper’s ladder to this lumberyard. The officers asked hauptmann about his trip to California in 1931 and his subsequent jobs in 1932.15 Finally, they asked about his most recent job at the majestic hotel. Bruno told the police that he started working at majestic in the spring of 1932. When asked to be more specific, hauptmann responded, “maybe i make a mistake in dates, i can’t remember, i didn’t keep books of this, but it was spring 1932.”16 moments later, he announced that he had started the job in February, which was certainly not during spring. he was also unsure whether he left the job in april or may of that same year, but insisted that when he worked there, he stayed until five or six o’clock.17 The interrogators soon learned that after leaving majestic, hauptmann started playing the stock market. he had an account with steiner, house & Company at 25 Broad street, which was still active. he could not remember the names of any of the stock he had purchased, but said that his greatest amount ever invested in the account was $20,000.18 From that time forward, with the exception of an occasional job for himself or his landlord, hauptmann never worked again.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Interrogation Begins

--

/355348t

| 155 |

losing patience, inspector lyons promptly changed subjects and showed hauptmann a $10 gold certificate. Bruno acknowledged that he had spent the bill at the lexington avenue gas station. he was aware that the bill was a gold certificate, but denied knowing it was part of the lindbergh ransom.19 lyons pressed hauptmann to admit to any other bills he had passed. hauptmann said he bought shoes for his wife at exquisite Footwear. he used a gold certificate, but could not remember if it was a ten or twenty. lyons produced the black shoes seized from hauptmann’s home, and Bruno quickly identified them. he also confessed—after some prompting—to buying vegetables with a $10 gold certificate on 89th street and again on Third avenue.20 These two purchases were made on september 5, 1934, at Boccanfuso store and Charles aiello & sons, respectively. in both cases, hauptmann purchased some produce valued at five or ten cents and paid with $10 gold notes. This annoyed both clerks (salvatore levatino and Charles aiello) and caused them to remember significant details.21 since hauptmann expressly admitted that he passed both of these bills, it is interesting and quite enlightening to examine the two descriptions of the same man given by the clerks. Both were similar in height and weight with only slight differences in estimated age. There were some areas of disagreement. levatino said hauptmann’s chin was pointed, his complexion light, and his suit light gray. as for his nationality, levatino was not sure. he was possibly irish, German, or scandinavian, but not latin.22 on the other hand, aiello said hauptmann’s chin was rounded and not square or pointed. his complexion was medium ruddy and his suit was “a bluish mixture; a color a shade lighter than navy blue.” his nationality was German, but he did not speak with an accent. he even said hauptmann’s hands were not those of a laboring man.23 This analysis is important because both men were describing hauptmann as he appeared on the exact same day. if anything, this demonstrates that one cannot simply ignore or set aside a description because there are minor errors. For example, there is the description by Cecille Barr, which has been attacked by lindbergh revisionists because she said hauptmann was “apparently american” and made no reference to an accent. Given that levatino and aiello described hauptmann as not having an accent, the criticism against ms. Barr suddenly loses its sting. Throughout any review or analysis of this case, or any criminal case for that matter, one must remember that personal observations can be very subjective. Certain people will notice different things depending on their circumstances. a tailor is more likely to remember someone’s clothing, whereas a hairstylist will probably focus on hairstyle and color. in that same vein, some people are able to recall things in exquisite detail while others remember only vague generalities. after hauptmann admitted these expenditures, the police demanded to know where he obtained the gold certificates in the first place. hauptmann lied to the police

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 156 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

and told them he had collected about $300 worth of gold certificates from the Central savings Bank, located at 73rd street and Broadway.24 he also claimed that he started spending them about three months earlier. By remarkable coincidence, his last bill was the $20 note found on his person by the police.25 The interrogators decided to change topics. They asked hauptmann how frequently he visited new Jersey. he replied, “i go over pretty near every two months.”26 he had been to trenton approximately one month earlier, but could not recall if he had ever been to hopewell.27 as the questions continued, hauptmann denied knowing dr. Condon or al reich, anyone named Faulkner, or anyone who worked in st. raymond’s or Woodlawn cemeteries. interestingly, though, hauptmann stated that he did not remember anything about the night of march 1, 1932.28 as a break from questioning, hauptmann was ordered to write a paragraph read aloud by inspector lyons. The exact paragraph read was: “Cross the street and walk to the next corner and follow Whittemore avenue to the sound. take the money with you. Come alone and walk. i will meet you. The boy is on the boat. it is a small boat 28' long. two persons are on the boat. They are innocent. you will find the boat between horseneck Beach and Gayhead, near elizabeth island.”29 When hauptmann finished, he was told to write the same paragraph repeatedly.30 While hauptmann was being interrogated, his wife was briefly questioned and sent home. The police felt that anna was either completely ignorant of the crime or a fantastic liar. Given her demeanor during the interrogation, they suspected the former. she would be thoroughly questioned two days later. The hauptmanns’ apartment and garage were being searched during this time as well. in the garage, the police found and confiscated Bruno’s tool kit. They noticed a full set of chisels, but alleged that the ¾-inch chisel was missing.31 This has become a hotly disputed issue. some, such as anthony scaduto, have argued that hauptmann owned several ¾-inch chisels, which were conveniently discarded by the police. in The Lindbergh Case, Jim Fisher addresses this argument and attempts to contradict it by pointing out the various brands of chisels found in the garage.32 This dispute is both caused and resolved by the official inventory list of the items taken from hauptmann’s garage maintained by the City of new york police department, as well as the report from arthur Koehler, dated october 1 to 4, 1936. These documents reveal that hauptmann had wood chisels in sizes: 1½ inch, ½ inch, and ¼ inch.33 additionally, there is a ¾-inch chisel listed in both documents. however, it was a cold chisel, not a wood chisel. a cold chisel has a different angle on the blade and is designed for use with metal, not wood.34 it therefore appears that hauptmann did not possess a ¾-inch wood chisel in his garage, notwithstanding mr. scaduto’s unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to the contrary.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Interrogation Begins

--

/355348t

| 157 |

inside the hauptmanns’ apartment, another very interesting item was discovered. a notebook was found containing a drawing of a portion of a ladder remarkably consistent with the actual kidnapper’s ladder. around 7:30 p.m., the police ceased their questions and placed hauptmann in a makeshift lineup with two other people.35 Joseph perrone, the cab driver who was given a note for dr. Condon on the night of the meeting in Woodlawn Cemetery, was brought into the room. The following dialogue then took place between perrone and insp. John lyons. Q: on march 12, 1932, at about 8:30 p.m., you were driving a taxicab in the vicinity of mosholu parkway and Gunhill road. did anybody accost you at that time? do you see him in this room? a: yes. That’s the man. he asked me to bring a note to dr. Condon—2974 decatur avenue, Bronx.

perrone then walked across the room and put his hand on hauptmann’s shoulder to further identify him. Q: you positively identify the man? a: yes.36

after perrone’s identification, the interrogation resumed shortly after nine o’clock. The police did not immediately ask any questions about perrone. likely, they wanted to let the sting of the identification really sink in before peppering their suspect with further questions. instead, they asked hauptmann if he had ever built a ladder. he denied it, though he professed to have the ability to do so.37 he also denied reading the Bronx Home News, but then said, “sometimes the paper lays on the steps of the house there. sometimes i take it up but i never read it.”38 This statement is very important because it shows that the newspaper used by Jafsie Condon to communicate with the kidnappers was readily available to hauptmann right on his front porch. hauptmann’s claim that he never read the paper and brought it into the house only for someone else is dubious and lacking in credibility. hauptmann was also asked if he was ever arrested. Bruno admitted a ticket for passing a red light and for over-parking. he denied ever being arrested either in the united states or Germany.39 This would later be proven a lie. The next thirty to forty-five minutes were spent discussing hauptmann’s finances and stock speculation. Bruno admitted that he had always lost money in the stock market until 1932, but now had a balance of approximately $4,000.40 inspector lyons asked hauptmann directly, “and you haven’t worked in two years and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 158 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

yet you have a balance of $4,000.00 with the broker, how do you account for that?” hauptmann answered, “i made money in the fur account, i lose some, isidor Fisch took half of the loss, when i make good he get half of what i made.”41 hauptmann would later retract this statement and claim financial loss because Fisch swindled him out of thousands of dollars. Finally, inspector lyons asked hauptmann about perrone’s identification. Bruno acknowledged that he had been positively identified, but insisted he had never seen perrone before or even ridden in a cab since buying his dodge.42 deputy Chief inspector sweeney joined in the questioning. Q: and you can’t give us any reason why the taxicab driver identified you? a: no. Q: except that he was absolutely certain that you were the man? a: i don’t know. Q: you are not helping yourself by sitting there lying. you don’t look like a man who is concerned in a kidnapping. a: (no answer) Q: now you are the man who delivered that note. There’s lots of explanations for that. our belief is that you are trying to help somebody out and cover somebody, you are not going to get anywhere doing that. now is your time to help out. a: i’m sorry. i can’t do anything on it.

over the next several hours, the police continued to question hauptmann on the gold certificates he spent, his activities in the stock market, relatives he had in the country, and his wife’s trip to Germany. hauptmann was shown the Faulkner deposit slip, which he denied ever writing or seeing previously. Throughout the evening, the prisoner insisted that the $20 gold note was the last bill of his collection and vehemently denied having any more. When the police grew tired of the questioning, they ordered hauptmann to write. This time, hauptmann was ordered to write the specific paragraph suggested by handwriting expert albert osborn.43 hour after hour, hauptmann wrote the same words again and again. he would later claim that he was ordered to misspell certain words to further incriminate him. There is no evidence to support this claim, and hauptmann’s assertions of this during trial were directly contradicted and refuted.44 The police wanted hauptmann to keep writing the same paragraph continually because it was clear to them that he was trying to disguise his handwriting. The slant of the first few sheets of writing would change mid-paragraph. The writing also appeared stiff and unnatural. it was also quite obvious to the officers that hauptmann was not writing freely; it was stiff and forced. as hauptmann continued to write and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Interrogation Begins

--

/355348t

| 159 |

tire, his handwriting became more fluid and consistent. now the police were starting to get the suspect’s actual handwriting. after writing for over four hours, hauptmann was allowed to sleep for about thirty minutes. Then he was awakened and ordered to continue writing. around eight in the morning, the prisoner could not write any further. he simply put his head down and went to sleep. hauptmann was awoken around eleven o’clock on the morning of Thursday, september 20, 1934. The police decided to start questioning him again from the beginning. What hauptmann did not know was that the police were about to make some significant discoveries at his home. around the same time, the police searched hauptmann’s garage. They had already taken most of the objects in plain sight. now they were looking for something less obvious—something hidden. mrs. hauptmann was present, watching the whole thing. The police wanted her there so there would be no allegations that any evidence was planted. Jim Fisher claims in The Lindbergh Case that mrs. hauptmann was not present during the initial search and that she was brought there later in a staged demonstration to see if she would be surprised at the find.45 he bases his conclusion upon an oral interview of trooper John Wallace, conducted by Cornel plebani.46 however, the tape should be rejected as totally unreliable. mr. Wallace sounds as if he was reading from a prepared text with mr. plebani asking extremely leading questions that were obviously designed to elicit certain responses. The interview itself sounds truly staged. it seems more likely that mrs. hauptmann was present during the actual search. The search seemed about to conclude when det. James petrosino noticed something odd near a small workbench on the south wall. a board was nailed across two joists, yet seemed to serve no useful purpose. he examined the board and pulled it loose. Behind the board was a hidden shelf with two small bundles wrapped in newspaper. The bundles were taken from their hiding spot and unwrapped. The first bundle contained one hundred $10 gold notes, and the second contained eighty-three more. it took only a few minutes of comparing serial numbers to confirm that every bill was part of the lindbergh ransom, $1,830 in all. encouraged by their find, the detectives began searching with greater zeal. They pried up floorboards and began taking the garage apart, piece by piece. nearly an hour later, they made their next find. det. edward murphy removed a board near the base of a window. hidden behind the board in the recess of the window was an old shellac can. he opened the can and found it filled with rags. he pulled out the first two rags and realized that there was something else inside—more bundles wrapped in newspaper. The bundles were gold certificates—a lot of them. The total amount found in the can was $11,930, and every

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 160 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

bill was part of the ransom. Combined with the earlier find, the police had uncovered $13,760 of lindbergh ransom money from hauptmann’s garage. There are few records detailing anna hauptmann’s response to the discovery of so much money. one can only imagine her shock and horror, not to mention the natural suspicion and doubt that must have occurred to her. Back at the police station, Bruno hauptmann continued to deny any further knowledge about the kidnapping or the ransom money. he steadfastly maintained that he did not have any more gold certificates. With the discovery of so much money in the garage, the police were confident that hauptmann would now confess to at least being part of an extortion scheme. They were sorely disappointed. hauptmann barely blinked an eye when presented with the money wrapped in newspaper. instead, he told a tale that has come to be known by historians as “The Fisch story.” hauptmann had a business partner named isidor Fisch. The two men worked together for nearly two years buying and selling furs. in december 1933, Fisch decided to return home to Germany. he sailed on december 9 and never returned. he died of tuberculosis on march 29, 1934, in leipzig, Germany. Before he sailed, Fisch left several items with hauptmann for safekeeping: a trunk, two suitcases, and a small shoebox tied with string. Fisch explained that there was paper in the box, so it needed to be kept dry.47 Fisch then placed it on the top shelf of the kitchen closet.48 about eight months later, in august 1934, a rainstorm caused a leak in that same closet. When hauptmann removed a broom from the closet, he damaged the box and noticed that there was money inside. he brought the money to his garage, allowed it to dry, and then hid it in the places found by the police. he started spending the money only because Fisch had cheated him out of nearly $7,000, and hauptmann felt he was entitled.49 inspectors lyons and sweeney were not buying hauptmann’s story. They quizzed him on the details for quite some time, but the prisoner would not budge. Frustrated, inspector lyons shouted, “Why did you lie last night about this money, to the officers, you didn’t tell them?” hauptmann replied, “i figured it would put me in a more difficult spot to explain and now i have to explain anyway.”50 Clearly dissatisfied with hauptmann’s answer, deputy Chief inspector sweeney practically shouted his follow-up questions. Q: listen, you heard yesterday that it was lindbergh money, didn’t you? a: yes. Q: Why didn’t you, like a decent man, father of a boy and husband of a good woman, tell the story you are now telling? a: The money was too hard to tell my wife, she gets too excited.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Interrogation Begins

--

/355348t

| 161 |

Q: When you heard it was the lindbergh money, why didn’t you say that the money was given to me by so and so under these circumstances; why didn’t you? a: i lose on this fellow seven thousand dollars. Q: Why didn’t you tell us that story this morning and yesterday? a: Because it really didn’t belong to me and i was afraid you take the money away this $40,000.00.51 Q: you want us to believe that? you knew it was blood money. a: i was afraid to tell you about it yesterday. i figured on how can i explain where i got them $40,000.00. Q: didn’t it ever suggest itself to you to tell the truth? a: (no answer) Q: if you were an innocent man or an honest man, as soon as you heard its lindberg [sic] money you would out and tell the truth. instead of that, for twenty hours you have sat there and lied. a: (no answer)52

it was becoming rather obvious to the investigators that hauptmann was not going to confess easily. They would need to gather more evidence.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 162 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 19 |

“i have to Be Very Careful. The man’s life is in Jeopardy”

While the police continued to hammer away at the Fisch story, another piece of evidence fell into place against hauptmann. albert s. osborn, a man considered the foremost authority in the world at that time on handwriting analysis, contacted the police station around 3:30 p.m. and announced he had concluded that Bruno richard hauptmann had written every ransom letter. mr. osborn’s son (also an expert) called within thirty minutes thereafter to announce his agreement with his father. a great deal of controversy has arisen over mr. osborn’s announcement. many authors believe that osborn changed his original opinion only after hearing of the discovery of the pile of ransom money.1 some point out that special agent turrou of the FBi issued a report in which he mentioned a phone call from albert osborn to the police during which he expressed doubt as to whether hauptmann wrote the notes. it is important to note that the phone call mentioned by agent turrou came from albert d. osborn, the son of albert s. osborn. young mr. osborn called the police around four o’clock in the morning expressing reservations about the handwriting samples. The following day, the elder osborn announced his conclusions and an hour later, his son called to say that he now agreed with his father. The turrou report certainly calls into question the opinions of albert d. osborn. There is nothing contained within the report, or any other evidence for that matter, showing that albert s. osborn ever expressed any doubt about his opinions or conclusions. his son may have expressed some doubts, but the elder, more experienced osborn never did. anthony scaduto further attacks albert d. osborn by referencing an error made, not by him, but by his firm in 1971. osborn’s firm opined that howard hughes signed a document when it had actually been forged by a man named Clifford irving.2 The attack offers nothing against albert s. osborn personally. although the opinion of the younger osborn clearly has some credibility problems, there is no reason to discard the testimony and opinion of the senior osborn. While he gave his initial opinion after the finding of the ransom money, there is no proof that mr. osborn was aware of the discovery. | 162 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy”

| 163 |

The entire osborn fiasco paled in comparison to the debacle that followed. By 5:00 p.m., a huge crowd of reporters gathered outside the station. Word had gotten out of hauptmann’s arrest, and the chaotic scramble for pictures, leads, scoops, and information had just begun. The press did not have to wait long because, shortly after 5 p.m., a police car parked in front of the station, and two uniformed officers and a tall man wearing a three-piece suit and black bowler hat stepped from the vehicle. The press recognized Jafsie Condon and rushed toward him, hoping for a comment. They knew he was there for only one reason—to identify a suspect. The officers pushed their way through the crowd to clear a path as dr. Condon strode confidently into the station. as Condon and the police fought past the press, Bruno hauptmann was taken from his interrogators and brought to the office of the deputy commissioner. When he arrived, there were thirteen policemen in a line, all dressed in plain clothes.3 While they were clean and pressed, hauptmann was unshaven, wrinkled, and unkempt. inspector lyons stepped toward hauptmann, saying, “richard, take a position in that line, any position you care to. We are going to bring a man in here to see if he can identify you. you choose your position.”4 hauptmann chose to stand between the third and fourth officer. dr. Condon entered the room and was greeted by inspector lyons. “dr. Condon,” lyons started, “start at the head of the line, look at all these men and if you can identify the man to whom you passed the money on the night of april 2, 1932, you just go over and put your hand on his shoulder.”5 Condon examined the men. he described the scene in his book: my eyes ran down the line. twelve or more men! and, perhaps eleven of them were broad-shouldered, florid-faced, bull-necked chaps who could not by any stretch of the imagination have been confused with the man i had described over and over, as John. among them—slender, sallow of face, expressionless—stood John, the man i had been seeking for two and one-half years.6

While Condon records that he was certain in his identification, the official transcript of the event reads differently. There have been many different versions of this lineup offered. some come from secondhand FBi reports, while others come from a book written by special agent turrou, which is perhaps the most ridiculous version of all.7 according to turrou, Condon ordered hauptmann and the other officers to march around the room in a military fashion and then became angry when ordered to stop. even as absurd as his account was, many revisionists cite it as gospel truth. turrou’s report is just not believable. likewise, the FBi reports are based upon hearsay and unreliable. The only credible version is the official transcript of the event, recorded by stenographers as it actually occurred. The official transcript records the lineup in this way:

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 164 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Condon: may i ask you for a favor? Ins. Lyons: yes. Condon: to speak to each man for one minute on something nobody else has heard but me? Ins. Lyons: yes.8

at this point, Condon walked back and forth along the line of men three times, stopped in front of hauptmann, and looked at him carefully. he then walked back to the end of the line near person thirteen.9 Condon: may i eliminate several men from the line now and have them come forward? Ins. Lyons: you want to eliminate some men? Condon: yes. Ins. Lyons: Who do you want to eliminate?10

Condon selected det. James J. Kissane (#2), Bruno richard hauptmann (#3a), patrolman herman schartzberg (#12), and patrolman Francis hershon (#11). he asked these four men to step forward.11 Condon: Can i speak to them, you don’t mind do you? Ins. Lyons: surely. Condon: When i saw you i gave you my promise that i would do all i possibly could for you if you gave me the baby. The only way in the world i think you can save yourself at all is to tell the truth. i gave you a promise heard that day. Follow that promise.12

The four men just stood there without a reply. Condon continued undaunted. Condon: Would you mind if they showed me their hands? Ins. Lyons: hold your palms up, hands up.13

Condon carefully examined the hands of the four men. later, the doctor would record that he was looking for a lump at the ball of the thumb that he noticed during his time in the cemetery with John. hauptmann supposedly had this same lump caused by a well-developed muscle in that location.14 There are some, such as sir ludovic Kennedy, who claim that hauptmann did not have a fleshy lump on his hand.15 There are no medical records that confirm or refute its existence. Frankly, mr. Kennedy has no basis for his assertion. That being said, one should not be willing to just take dr. Condon’s word for it. any identification based solely upon the alleged fleshy lump should be rejected.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy”

| 165 |

When he finished looking at the men’s hands, he continued his questioning. Condon: you four men, i will ask you, did you ever see me before? Kissane: no, sir. Hauptmann: no, sir. Schwartzberg: no, sir. Mershon: no, sir. Condon: What is your name? Kissane: James J. Kissane Hauptmann: richard hauptmann Schwartzberg: herman schwartzberg Mershon: Francis mershon16

momentarily ignoring the three remaining officers, Condon took a piece of paper and wrote something on it. he handed it to hauptmann, ordering him to “read it out loud.” Hauptmann: i stayed too long already. The leader would smack me out. your work is perfect. Condon: i could not quite hear those last three lines. you read “The leader would—” Hauptmann: The leader would smack me out. your work is perfect. Condon: you never saw me before? Hauptmann: never. Condon: What is your name? Hauptmann: richard hauptmann. Condon: What is it again? Hauptmann: richard hauptmann. Condon: say that. (handing hauptmann a piece of paper) Hauptmann: John. Condon: and you didn’t see me before? Hauptmann: no. Condon: you got time to say it if you have. Hauptmann: no, i never saw you before. Condon: let me see your hands.17

hauptmann held up his hands and Condon examined them for the second time. Jafsie asked all four men to repeat their names. after each man replied, Condon announced that he wanted the three officers to step back, but he would ask more questions of hauptmann.18

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 166 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Condon: i gave the money. i promised to help out in case the baby was restored to me, do you remember that? Hauptmann: no. Condon: and i said i would help you out? Hauptmann: no, i never talked to you. Condon: i never broke my word in my life. What is your name? Hauptmann: richard hauptmann. Condon: Where were you born? Hauptmann: Germany. Condon: What place? Hauptmann: saxony. Condon: you don’t remember me—speaking to me? Hauptmann: i can’t say that i can.19

The transcript records that Condon began speaking to the prisoner in German. unfortunately, the stenographer apparently did not speak the language. as such, we have only dr. Condon’s book as a source for what was said. Condon: Können sie deutsch sprechen? [Can you speak German?] Hauptmann: Ja, ich kann. sprechen sie zu mir auch deutsch. [yes, i can. speak to me in German.] Condon: Wahrheit ist besser, richard. [truth is better, richard.] Hauptmann: (no reply.)20

Condon continued by reciting a German poem, which he offered as “a plea to unburden his soul.”21 hauptmann said nothing. Condon reverted to english and continued his questions. Condon: That’s what i meant, you didn’t understand me—listen—you never saw me before? Hauptmann: no. Condon: didn’t speak to me? Hauptmann: no. Condon: you live in the Bronx? Hauptmann: yes. Condon: do you know 233rd street? Hauptmann: 233rd street, yes, i know because i live 222nd, that’s where i live. Condon: you have nothing to say to me at all? Hauptmann: no. Condon: Why? Hauptmann: i don’t know what to say.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy”

| 167 |

Condon: put your hat on please. put it down to one side. (hauptmann complied.) you didn’t speak to me about a baby at all? Hauptmann: no. Condon: never said a word. Hauptmann: never said a word. Condon: never had a conversation with me? Hauptmann: no. Condon: are you positive of that? Hauptmann: positive.22

inspector lyons was growing impatient with the old doctor. “Would you say he was the man?” lyons demanded. Condon replied, “i would not say he was the man.” “you are not positive?” lyons asked. “i am not positive.” Condon responded.23 This would seem to be at odds with the certainty that Condon claimed in his book. never at a loss for words, though, Condon wrote a lengthy explanation for his hesitation. John, the kidnapper of the lindbergh baby, the man to whom i paid $50,000, stood there before me. i had said i would recognize him again, anywhere, instantly. and i did now. But as strong—or stronger—was the second thing of which i was aware. The whole atmosphere was totally unfair. This was no orderly procedure of justice. it was a bustling chaos of a madhouse. it may seem inconceivable that i, at that moment, should have thought of John’s interest. But i did.24

it is extremely difficult to accept that Condon would have thought of hauptmann’s interest, especially since Charles lindbergh was his hero. more likely, this was an excuse created by Condon to deflect the significant criticism that resulted from his hesitation. This was not the end of Condon’s personal interrogation, however. he obtained permission to give hauptmann another piece of paper. Condon: now i want you to read this to me out a little loudly so i can hear. Hauptmann: What would your mother say? she would not like it. she would cry. Condon: louder, i am not able to hear. Hauptmann: What would your mother say? she would not like it. Condon: still a little louder.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 168 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Hauptmann: What would your mother say? What would your mother say? She would not like it. She would cry. Condon: Whom were you afraid of up there? Hauptmann: Please? Condon: Whom were you afraid of up there besides your mother? Do you remember number two that you could not wait any longer because they would smack you out, the leader? Hauptmann: I don’t know what you mean. Condon: Alright, say number two. Hauptmann: Number two. Condon: Your name is what? Hauptmann: Richard Hauptmann. Condon: How [long] do you live in the Bronx? Hauptmann: Nine years. Condon: Nine years up there; you don’t know me? Hauptmann: No. Condon: Never saw me? Hauptmann: No. Condon: You work in the Bronx? Hauptmann: Yes, all over the Bronx. Condon: How much do you weigh? Hauptmann: Around 280—282.25 Condon: Have you gotten a little stouter lately than you were? Did you increase in weight lately? Hauptmann: No, I am practically the same. Condon: In two years? Hauptmann: Yes. Condon: How much did you weigh then about? A little lighter? Hauptmann: No, I guess just the same, a slight difference in summer time or winter, that’s all. Condon: Did you ever run in races? Hauptmann: No. Condon: Did you ever take exercises in German turning school? Hauptmann: Not here, over there. Condon: In the old country? Hauptmann: Yes. Condon: You can climb pretty well with your hands? Hauptmann: I used to do it in school as a child. Condon: In Gymnasium? Hauptmann: Yes, gymnastic school.26

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy”

| 169 |

By this point, inspector lyons was understandably frustrated. “is that the man?” he demanded. Condon responded, “he is the one who would come nearer to answering the description than anybody i saw. you gave me no hint and i picked him out. he is a little heavier. Can i go over and talk to him? i couldn’t say he is not the man.” lyons, trying desperately to get a definitive answer from Condon, asked, “it looks like him?” “yes,” Condon replied. “But you cannot identify him?” lyons asked in obvious defeat. “no, i have to be very careful. The man’s life is in jeopardy.” Condon announced.27 inspector lyons ordered Condon from the room. he could not understand why the old man would not identify hauptmann. regardless, there were other people waiting to view the suspect and no more time would be wasted on the codger’s grandstanding. Condon would later testify against hauptmann and identify him as Cemetery John. however, Jafsie’s refusal and/or inability to identify hauptmann has been the subject of tremendous debate for over eighty years. many who believe hauptmann was innocent argue that Condon honestly did not believe that hauptmann was Cemetery John. They allege that Condon agreed to testify against hauptmann because he was threatened with being named a coconspirator if he refused.28 There is no credible evidence from any reliable source that Condon was ever threatened with arrest or prosecution if he did not identify hauptmann. others suggest that Condon looked at so many pictures and mug shots during the preceding two-and-a-half years that his value as an eyewitness and his ability to actually recognize John were compromised, if not destroyed.29 This is certainly a plausible hypothesis. The transcript supports the idea that Condon thought hauptmann was the man, but was just not 100 percent sure. it is also equally possible that Condon was playing the role of a lifetime. By allowing some mystery and suspense, his subsequent testimony would draw headlines around the world. his act was “a supreme act of showmanship.”30 Condon’s personality and flair for the dramatic were definitely consistent with this explanation. on the other hand, his failure to immediately identify hauptmann caused several media outlets to attack his credibility. Given his almost obsessive need for public admiration, it is hard to accept that Condon would have done anything to intentionally jeopardize his public image. dr. dudley shoenfeld offers yet another theory. earlier in the investigation, Condon was accused of being a coconspirator. he was interrogated for hours by inspector Walsh, and the two men had nearly come to blows. The new york City police aggravated him on many occasions. dr. shoenfeld believed that Condon still held a grudge against the police and got his revenge by initially refusing to identify hauptmann.31 This is definitely a stretch and rather unlikely.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 170 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

There are also those who believe that Condon failed to act out of fear. special agent turrou issued a memorandum, dated september 21, 1934, in which he claims Condon professed that hauptmann’s accomplices were going to kill him.32 Condon did write in his book that he thought hauptmann had accomplices.33 it is possible that the doctor was frightened for himself and his family, though his later behavior would seem to contradict this idea. Condon testified at trial, wrote a book on the case, and continued to talk with reporters for another two years. That is not the behavior of a frightened man. one of the more recent books written about the lindbergh case suggests that Condon was “wacky,” “incompetent,” and possibly “mentally deranged.”34 in Where My Shadow Falls, agent turrou suggests senility as a possible cause.35 There are questions about Condon’s faculties. By 1934, Condon was seventyfour years old. it is not inconceivable that his memory might have been beginning to fail. additionally, there is an article from Liberty Magazine, dated march 28, 1936, which offers some insight. Written by Fulton oursler, the article revolves around an interview of Jafsie Condon that took place in panama. The description of the old doctor is quite revealing. i knew at once that a profound change had come over the old man. he was dressed youthfully in flannel trousers and blue shirt. his face was tanned a chocolate brown. But the childish humor that had always danced like a light in his eyes was gone. instead, his expression was one of solemn penitence. he glanced at his daughter apprehensively before he greeted me, and when he sat down he sighed heavily and looked at the sea.36

moreover, there were further comments made by oursler at the end of the interview. But Jafsie had changed, nevertheless. Changed unbelievably . . . of all the human beings i ever knew, he had been the most talkative. his conversation was incessant. now the mighty flow of it had dwindled to a tiny frightened stream.37

The dramatic change in personality suggests that Condon may have been in the early stages of alzheimer’s disease.38 The article also alludes to Condon’s daughter acting protectively toward her father and even asking oursler to not print some of Jafsie’s remarks. This could also explain some of the odd statements made by Condon after he returned from panama. almost certainly, Condon did not have this marked change in september 1934. The first and only mention of a personality change is in march 1936, and the source is by no means definitive. But, given this article, as well as Condon’s behavior and statements after he returned from panama, it appears that something was indeed

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy”

| 171 |

wrong with him in 1936. he may very well have been suffering from the early signs of alzheimer’s disease or dementia. There is no other evidence demonstrating any mental deficiency (other than quirkiness) affecting dr. Condon during the investigation or subsequent trial. Condon’s performance during cross-examination satisfies any reasonable person that he was not mentally impaired at that time. Condon offered his own explanation, though it was not very convincing either. Jafsie claimed that he was offended by the “disorderly atmosphere” of the police station.39 he wrote, “i rebelled against the whole, disorderly atmosphere. and, because i felt it was not just and because i felt that my way was the just way, i refused to declare my identification.”40 Jafsie went to great lengths in his trial testimony and his book to explain the difference between “identification” and “declaration of identification.”41 he claimed that he identified hauptmann in his mind, but simply never declared it publicly. only at the proper time would he declare his identification. This issue may be the single most important question in the entire case. if John Condon properly identified Bruno richard hauptmann, then there is no real debate. Condon was the only man to meet and speak with the kidnapper. unfortunately, as with most of Jafsie’s involvement, there is no clear and obvious answer. The identification was forever tainted when the doctor either failed or refused to pick hauptmann out of the lineup. my personal belief is that Condon was an honest man. he was arrogant and prone to exaggerate his involvement to make himself appear the conquering hero, but was also a church-going Catholic and a God-fearing man. John Condon would not have been able to live with himself if he knowingly helped send an innocent man to the electric chair. to do so would be equivalent to murder. John Condon was overly impressed with himself and willing to exaggerate his involvement in the case to increase his importance, but he was not evil and not a murderer. dr. Condon may have been so consumed with his abilities and sense of importance that he actually thought he could get hauptmann to confess. if hauptmann was convicted, Condon and the police would have shared the credit. however, if Condon could coerce a confession, the credit and glory would have been his alone. it is also rather telling that Condon spoke to hauptmann in German, so nobody else in the room could understand. The first thing he said to hauptmann was “Wahrheit ist besser” or “The truth is better.” There was no reason to say this if Condon did not believe hauptmann was guilty. The chapters ahead will reveal that Condon requested and was given a chance to speak with hauptmann in his cell. during this conversation, Condon continually offered his help and repeatedly implored Bruno to confess. When hauptmann refused and it was clear that he would not make a confession, Condon told the prosecuting attorney that hauptmann was their man.42 he also asked that his identification be kept secret until the day of trial.43 Condon may finally have realized that he was not going to get hauptmann to

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 172 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

confess. Condon actually claimed in his book that he had hauptmann in tears and on the verge of confessing before a jail guard appeared and ruined the moment.44 since he failed to get a confession from hauptmann, there was nothing left for him to do but offer his identification and testify. to provide some mystery and extra hype for his anticipated testimony, Condon made sure the world had to wait until the trial for his dramatic proclamation of guilt. it will never be known for sure whether dr. Condon was confused from the early stages of alzheimer’s, seeking revenge against the police, initially unsure that hauptmann was the man, intimidated by the possibility of physical retribution by hauptmann’s perceived accomplices, engaging in an act of showmanship, simply making sure hauptmann was treated fairly by the judicial system—as he claimed in his book—or trying to get a confession and secure his place in history. The truth, one way or the other, was lost forever on January 2, 1945, when John F. Condon succumbed to pneumonia.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 20 |

more pieces to the puzzle

after Jafsie’s disappointing performance, the police brought their suspect before a magistrate for arraignment on the charge of extortion. The hearing was relatively brief. hauptmann was informed of the charges and his right to an attorney. he was ordered held without bail, and the case was adjourned until the following monday, september 24, 1934, for a more formal arraignment. hauptmann was transferred to the Bronx County Jail, where he was held. Between his preliminary arraignment and his transfer to the Bronx County Jail, hauptmann alleged that he was viciously beaten with a hammer on his head, chest, arms, and legs. This beating, which hauptmann later described at trial as “the treatment,” occurred at the Greenwich police station on the evening of september 20, before his transfer.1 it should also be noted that hauptmann reported previously that he was beaten “two days after i was arrested,” which would refer to Friday, september 21.2 The official records reveal that hauptmann was examined by dr. John Garlock (a physician employed by the police) on september 20 at around nine-thirty in the evening. The only negative finding in dr. Garlock’s report was hauptmann’s loss of sleep. There was no evidence of any physical abuse.3 Five days later, dr. dexter Thurston (a doctor hired by hauptmann’s defense team) issued a report declaring that the prisoner had been subjected to a severe beating.4 as part of his report, there was some brief testimony from hauptmann, wherein he alleged, “They took a hammer and beat me over the head a couple of times and all over the body.”5 There are a few problems with this story. First, hauptmann’s booking photo was taken on september 21, and there are no cuts, bruises, or abrasions visible on any part of the man’s head, face, or neck. second, the physical findings on examination noted by dr. Thurston do not corroborate hauptmann’s version of events. (Bruno stated he was hit with a hammer repeatedly on the body, including his head.) dr. Thurston’s report states that he found no lumps or marks on the patient’s head and only a faint yellow discoloration under

| 173 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 174 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

the left eye.6 if hauptmann was struck repeatedly over the head with a hammer, there should have been more significant findings. The balance of the examination showed a “superficial slight abrasion and slight discoloration with no appreciable swelling” on the right shoulder and left scapula, a “faint, greenish yellow discoloration,” described as a “fading bruise,” on the abdomen, and a fading (though tender) bruise on the chest. The only significant finding was on the right thigh. here, there was a “swollen, very tender and markedly discolored” bruise.7 hauptmann’s claims that he was beaten with a hammer are not convincing, though he was probably roughed up, punched, and kicked several times on his arms and legs. he was not hit in the face or over the head. This kind of disgusting treatment was not uncommon at that time. however, hauptmann’s claim of a brutal assault with a hammer is a gross exaggeration of what actually transpired. The behavior of the police was still wrong, but not as barbaric as hauptmann later claimed. regardless of what truly transpired, when Bruno richard hauptmann was finally brought to the Bronx County Jail, he was placed in a cell and allowed to sleep undisturbed for the first time since his arrest. having obtained little or nothing from mr. hauptmann, the police decided to try their luck with mrs. hauptmann. she was brought to the station for questioning on the evening of september 21, 1934. anna was obviously terrified and overwhelmed, so the lead interrogator, assistant district attorney edward F. Breslin, started by asking about her meeting, marriage, and early life with her husband.8 anna explained that she met Bruno hauptmann, whom she knew only as richard, in the spring of 1924 and married him on october 10, 1925, at City hall in new york City. They lived at 1462 needham avenue for five years before moving to their current address.9 as anna started to relax a little, mr. Breslin asked about her and her husband’s prior jobs. anna responded that she had worked almost continuously since her marriage with the exception of two trips to Germany.10 as far as anna knew, her husband was working when she left for Germany in 1932, but not when she returned.11 she further explained that richard’s carpentry tools, though not being used, were kept in the garage.12 mr. Breslin asked anna if her husband’s behavior was any different when she returned from Germany. mrs. hauptmann replied that her husband had met mr. and mrs. henkel, and she did not like that mrs. henkel had been in her house while she was away.13 When anna met Gerta henkel, she was offended by her informal demeanor and language. anna specifically said, “in Germany, we don’t say you right away.”14 in spoken German, unlike english, there is a formal and informal case. The expres-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

More Pieces to the Puzzle

--

/355348t

| 175 |

sion “you are here” is “sie sind hier” if the formal case is used. in the informal, one would say, “du bist hier.” to use the informal German language with someone you have just met is considered rude and highly insulting. anna was also upset by her husband’s behavior around Gerta henkel. Breslin specifically asked anna, “What change did you notice in his conduct toward you? Was he as affectionate toward you after you came back from europe as he was before, or did you get the idea he was with mrs. hinkle [sic]?” anna answered, “i can’t say i saw something; they were just like kids.”15 it is not a big stretch to assume from this answer that anna was suspicious of the relationship between her husband and Gerta henkel. anna hauptmann may have been naive, but she was nobody’s fool. The official transcript of anna’s interrogation reveals several more pages of questions about Gerta henkel and her involvement with Bruno richard hauptmann. according to anna’s answers, Bruno would frequently play cards at the henkel house, staying there until midnight or two o’clock in the morning.16 When asked directly if her husband was “going out with mrs. hinkle [sic],” she denied it, saying, “no, i don’t believe that.”17 Breslin slyly changed subjects and asked about the kitchen closet, particularly the top shelf. anna said she kept a tin tobacco box on the top shelf of the closet in which she stored her coupons.18 she checked this box once every three weeks or so, but never saw any other boxes on that shelf.19 The assistant district attorney picked up the pace and began firing questions at her about isidor Fisch. anna knew that Fisch had left two bags with her husband for safekeeping. These bags contained clothing and other personal items. she did not know of any other items left by Fisch, including a box full of money. she adamantly insisted that richard never told her—nor did she have any idea—that he had found over $14,000 in a shoebox and hidden it in the garage.20 it was becoming rather obvious to the investigators that mrs. hauptmann was either a superb liar or knew absolutely nothing about the kidnapping and her husband’s possible involvement. anna was sent home soon thereafter. Though the police were now convinced of anna’s innocence, they had obtained significant information from her. Bruno claimed the shoebox filled with gold certificates sat on the top shelf in the closet for many months, but anna never saw it even though she checked the box of coupons on that shelf once every three weeks or so. The following monday, Bruno hauptmann was again brought before magistrate richard mcKinery for formal arraignment. This time, he was not alone. his newly hired attorney, James m. Fawcett, stood with him. Fawcett, who was hired by anna hauptmann earlier that weekend, was not the most experienced attorney, but he was very eager.21 Fawcett’s involvement in the case was short-lived, though he did an admirable job representing his client. Fawcett’s appearance did not change the results of the arraignment. hauptmann

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 176 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

anna hauptmann standing in her kitchen closet and raising her hand showing that she could reach the top shelf.

was still ordered held without bail and returned to jail, though Fawcett did hold a press conference immediately after the proceeding. his comments were rather generic and lacked the fire and brimstone of modern defense attorneys. What hauptmann did not know was that detectives, led by insp. henry Bruckman, were inside his home conducting a detailed search while he was appearing in court. unable to thoroughly search a small closet because of its size, Bruckman ordered two carpenters to remove the pole and clothes rack from within.22 Bruckman then squeezed into the closet and scanned the interior walls with his flashlight. on

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

More Pieces to the Puzzle

--

/355348t

| 177 |

the trim of the door, the inspector noticed some writing. When he put his reading glasses on, he determined that the writing was an address (2974 decatur) and a phone number (3–7154 with the word sedgewick below it).23 Checking the rest of the closet, Bruckman found two lengthy numbers (B0000 7162a and B0000 9272a) written on the inside of the closet door.

text reads: “linK in eVidenCe Chain. The photo on the left shows the interior of a closet in the bedroom of Bruno hauptmann. The photo on the right is an enlarged view of the inside trim of this bedroom closet. The numerals at the top of the photo, 2974 and the name decatur, the word directly below, sedgewick and the numerals 3-7154 are the address and telephone number of dr. John F. (Jafsie) Condon, intermediary, who paid the $50,000.00 ransom to Bruno hauptmann. hauptmann’s explanation of dr. Condon’s address and telephone number was ‘i was interested in the case and jotted the address and phone number down on the inside of the bedroom closet.’”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 178 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The two lengthy numbers ended up being unrelated to the case.24 The address and telephone number were very relevant because they belonged to none other than dr. John F. Condon. The phone number was actually Condon’s exchange in 1932, but not in 1934. Condon changed to an unlisted number due to the extraordinary volume of calls he received when he was revealed as Jafsie. realizing the potential importance of this find, Bruckman had maurice tobin, one of the carpenters, remove the door trim and take it into police custody as evidence. since Bruckman did not yet know the true nature of the numbers on the door, he had that taken into custody as well.25 The following day, likely as a reward for his find, inspector Bruckman was allowed to watch assistant district attorney Foley question hauptmann about the board.26 hauptmann readily admitted that the board came from his closet. When asked if his handwriting was on the board, hauptmann replied, “yes, all over it.” he denied knowing it was Condon’s address he had written and professed difficulty actually reading it.27 When asked why he had written the address and phone number, hauptmann stated, “i must have read it in the paper about the story. i was a little bit interest and keep a little bit record of it, and maybe i was just on the closet, and was reading the paper and put down the address.”28 When pressed, hauptmann added, “it is possible that a shelf or two shelfs [sic] in the closet and after a while i put new papers always on the closet, and we just got the paper where this case was in, and i followed the story of course, and i put the address there.”29 Foley was not buying the explanation, but was content with hauptmann’s admission that he had written Condon’s address and phone number. realizing that he would get nothing further from hauptmann, Foley had him sent back to jail. later that afternoon, the presentation of evidence before the Bronx County grand jury resumed. The kidnapping and murder of the lindbergh baby were within new Jersey’s jurisdiction, but the extortion took place in new york. an indictment on the extortion charges was necessary to hold hauptmann in jail while the new Jersey state police collected more evidence. moreover, the Bronx County district attorney’s office wanted their share of the limelight. That day, the Bronx grand jury heard from several witnesses, including lieutenant Finn, Captain lamb, Joseph perrone, Greg Coleman (the editor of the Bronx Home News), and the attendants from the Warner-Quinlan gas station (Walter lyle and John lyons). perhaps the highlight of the day for the grand jurors was the appearance and testimony of John F. Condon, who was his usual bombastic and entertaining self. The following morning, september 26, 1934, the grand jury heard from the rest of the state’s witnesses. albert osborn and his son, along with Charles appel, another handwriting expert, testified that hauptmann wrote all of the ransom notes. Cecille

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

More Pieces to the Puzzle

--

/355348t

| 179 |

Barr identified hauptmann as the man who gave her the folded $5 ransom bill at loew’s sheridan Theater back on november 26, 1933. henry Breckinridge and several officers and agents told the jurors about their involvement with the case. The most memorable moment for the grand jurors was when Charles lindbergh himself strode into the room to testify. Through a series of very leading questions by a.d.a. Foley, lindbergh recalled the events of april 2, 1932, the night the ransom was paid. several of the jurors mustered their courage to ask follow-up questions of the world’s most famous man. one of the jurors’ questions actually started the ball rolling on one of the most talked-about pieces of evidence in the entire case. Q: (By a Juror) Will you please ask the witness, mr. Foley, will you ask the Colonel could he recognize that man’s voice if he heard it again? Q: (By Foley) do you think you would recognize that man’s voice if you heard it again? a: (lindbergh) i can’t say positively. i remember the voice very clearly. i would recognize the voice to be identical with the one that i heard, it would be very difficult for me to sit here and say that i could pick a man by that voice.30

after lindbergh finished testifying, a.d.a. Foley discussed the possibility of identifying the voice of Cemetery John. it was decided that lindbergh would return the next morning to try. it was not surprising that the grand jurors voted unanimously to indict Bruno richard hauptmann on the charge of extortion. ironically, though new york acted first, their indictment would never go to trial. more was happening on this day than just grand jury testimony. That morning, lieutenant Bornmann met inspector Bruckman and several detectives and carpenters at the hauptmann home. They were determined to find more of the ransom money, so they split into two groups. The first, led by Bornmann, would search the house, while the second, led by Bruckman, would search the garage. While searching the attic for more ransom money, Bornmann made the biggest discovery of the entire case. The attic was not completely finished. Thirteen wooden planks were nailed across the joists to form a partial floor. as Bornmann stared at them, he suddenly realized that one of the boards was significantly shorter. upon closer inspection, Bornmann determined that nearly eight feet of the board had been removed. There were four empty nail holes on the exposed joists, saw marks on the remaining board, and a small amount of sawdust as well.31 Though primarily looking for money, the significance of the missing section of board was not lost on lieutenant Bornmann. he had traveled for months with arthur Koehler and was present at the national lumber & millwork Company when

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 180 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

hauptmann’s attic showing the missing portion of board.

the wood expert matched wood from the lumberyard to some of the wood in the kidnapper’s ladder. he had also been briefed by Koehler on his theory concerning prior usage of rail sixteen of the ladder. to confirm any evidentiary value, the board and joists would need to be examined by Koehler, the true wood expert. Bornmann had the two carpenters carefully remove the remainder of the attic board and save the nails. The attic board and nails were brought down from the attic and locked in one of the bedrooms. The key was entrusted to a patrolman, who promptly brought it to the police station for safekeeping.32 Bornmann filed a written report detailing his find and made arrangements for arthur Koehler to conduct his examination of the attic board and nails.33 Koehler would not be able to do so until nearly two weeks later. his analysis would be damning. While Bornmann was ripping up the attic floor, inspector Bruckman and his officers were busy taking hauptmann’s garage apart, piece by piece. The officers found, wedged between two beams, an eight-inch piece of wood with five circular holes and a sixth hole that was much larger and oval shaped. The first five holes contained cash ($840 in total), and all of it was lindbergh ransom money. The sixth hole contained a small silver .25 caliber pistol. The weapon was loaded.34 The board, cash, and pistol were collected and brought to assistant district attorney Foley. after examining the evidence, Foley decided to confront hauptmann. maybe this time he would finally confess. hauptmann was brought to Foley’s office, the same room where he had been questioned the previous day. Foley wasted no time getting started.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

More Pieces to the Puzzle

--

/355348t

| 181 |

Q: hauptmann, yesterday i showed you a piece of wood from your house with Condon’s address and phone number on it, is that correct? a: yes. Q: you admitted that you wrote that on the board? a: yes. Q: i ask you, have you any more money hidden in the house or garage, or anywhere on the premises, yes or no? a: i said no. Q: i ask you now to look at what has been ripped out of the garage and brought down by detectives. a: i told my lawyer about it. Q: you didn’t tell me about it? a: it didn’t make any difference anyway. Q: Why not? a: Because there was a pistol there. Q: What about the money, it is lindbergh’s money? a: yes. Q: Where did you get it? a: it’s from the same box. There must be about six to eight hundred dollars. Q: you never told us it came from that box? a: i was going to hide it in the car, and the little pistol. Q: you were going to hide the money on account of the pistol? a: yes. Q: What did the pistol have to do with the money? a: nothing, but i was afraid about the pistol. Q: how long did you have the pistol? a: about 10 years. Q: Where did you get it? a: i bought it from a German fellow. Q: did you buy it in america? a: yes. Q: did you ever have a permit for it? a: no.

For the remainder of the questioning, Foley kept asking why the gun and the money had been hidden together. hauptmann admitted that the board was specifically designed to hide the gun and the money and both had been hidden at the same time. he refused to provide any answer as to why the items had been hidden together. Frustrated and needing to continue with his grand jury presentation, Foley ended his questioning and ordered hauptmann returned to his cell. it was beginning to look like hauptmann would never confess no matter how strong the evidence.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 182 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The following morning, hauptmann was again taken to mr. Foley’s office, along with a group of detectives. This time, he was not there for questioning. unbeknownst to the prisoner, Charles lindbergh was among the detectives, disguised with a hat and sunglasses. The time had come for lindbergh to see if he could identify hauptmann’s voice. a.d.a. Foley ordered hauptmann to stand, face the detectives, and shout, “hey doctor!” hauptmann was moved around the room and ordered to shout again and again, each time louder than before. Then he was quickly ushered out of the room and back to his cell. dropping his disguise, lindbergh made a positive identification of the voice. When asked if he was certain, lindbergh repeated, “That is the voice i heard that night.”35 There is perhaps no piece of evidence more scrutinized and criticized than lindbergh’s voice identification. Could a man possibly recognize another man’s voice (to the exclusion of all others) having heard him speak only a few words over two years prior? two FBi agents present at the event, sisk and turrou, did not believe so. They actually submitted a highly critical report to J. edgar hoover. numerous authors have condemned this evidence, and some have accused lindbergh of outright perjury. There is truly no way to know whether lindbergh really believed the voices were identical or just made the claim to help convict the man he believed murdered his son. only Charles lindbergh knew the answer, and he took it to his grave. even his autobiography declines to address the subject. lindbergh merely stated the evidence was “overwhelming” without delving deeper.36 it is doubtful that lindbergh was able to positively identify hauptmann’s voice to the exclusion of all others, but lindbergh may not have committed perjury. he heard a man’s voice with a thick German accent saying the exact words he heard at the cemetery. since lindbergh was fully aware of the evidence against hauptmann, he was inclined to believe in his guilt. The combination of these factors may have caused lindbergh to reach his conclusion and make the identification. lindbergh probably believed what he said and therefore did not commit perjury. in reality, most men could not identify a particular person’s voice after hearing only a few words uttered over two years earlier. Thus, although hauptmann was likely the man who spoke those words at st. raymond’s Cemetery, lindbergh’s testimony may not be reliable. put another way, lindbergh was right, but for the wrong reasons.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey

| 183 |

| 21 |

legal Gymnastics in new Jersey

if the police had any doubt about the guilt of their prime suspect, it was eliminated when documents from Germany arrived concerning hauptmann’s criminal record. The authorities already knew he was an illegal alien and had previously made two unsuccessful attempts to enter the country. They did not know that he had committed multiple felonies in Germany and was a fugitive escapee, despite his claim of no prior arrests. according to official records, hauptmann committed three burglaries, armed robbery, multiple counts of theft, and received stolen goods. he was arrested in Kamenz and actually escaped from custody twenty-eight days later before turning himself in the following day. on June 3, 1919, he was convicted of three counts of grand larceny, one count of armed robbery (referred to in German records as “highway robbery”), one count of petit larceny, and one count of receiving stolen goods. he was sentenced to just over five years in prison.1 after being paroled on march 30, 1923, hauptmann was sought for questioning on suspicion of three counts of theft. over a period of a few days, various factories in Kamenz were broken into and machine parts (including drive belts) stolen. he was eventually apprehended on June 12, 1923. eight days later, hauptmann escaped from jail and fled to the united states.2 at the time of his arrest in new york relative to the lindbergh kidnapping, he was still a wanted man in Germany. in the years since the trial, many have tried to dismiss or downplay hauptmann’s criminal past. a staff writer for the New York Daily News, Jay maeder, wrote an article called “Bread Thief,” in which he wrote: “richard hauptmann had once stolen a loaf of bread and gone to jail.”3 mr. maeder neglected to mention that the bread was stolen at gunpoint, along with a woman’s purse, money, and items of personal property. all of his other crimes were mysteriously omitted from the article as well. hauptmann’s criminal past does not prove he committed the lindbergh kidnapping and murder. Just because he was a burglar, robber, thief, and two-time escapee does not mean he was a murderer and/or kidnapper. he was certainly not a choirboy

| 183 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 184 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

either; his criminal record in Germany was significant. attempts to downplay or ignore this record reveal clear bias and a lack of objectivity. hauptmann’s past (especially his two prior escapes) must certainly have been on the minds of the police after the events of Friday, september 28, 1934, the day after lindbergh’s controversial identification. That morning, hauptmann was in his cell, finishing his breakfast. When the guard collected the tray and remnants of the meal, he noticed the metal spoon was missing. When asked, the prisoner claimed he returned it. as a security precaution, hauptmann and the cell were thoroughly searched, but nothing was found. still suspicious, the guard ordered the sink and toilet checked. a plumber disconnected them and the spoon was found, broken into several pieces. one piece was sharp and quite usable as a weapon. a significant portion of the handle was bent into a hook. When shown the fragments, hauptmann denied knowing anything about them. From that day forward, hauptmann was kept on constant suicide watch. he was observed continually, and anything that could be used to harm himself, such as a belt or tie, was removed. The cell was kept brightly lit, even at night, and hauptmann was not permitted even to cover his head with a blanket when sleeping. it is unlikely that hauptmann was actually contemplating taking his own life. The evidence suggests he was actually plotting another escape. in The Lindbergh Case, Jim Fisher actually makes this accusation, contending that the hook was to be used as a key and the sharp piece a knife to slit a guard’s throat.4 it is not possible to know hauptmann’s real motive with the spoon because he denied any involvement. in fact, during a conversation with his wife (overheard by a German-speaking guard), anna described the incident, saying, “they tried to frame you.”5 That same day, arthur Koehler and lieutenant Bornmann examined hauptmann’s attic, rail sixteen of the ladder, and the remainder of the attic board now locked in the upstairs bedroom. Koehler carefully placed rail sixteen over the exposed attic joists. The four extra holes, separate from the nail holes that held the ladder together, lined up perfectly with the holes in the joists. The spacing and angles of nail entry were identical. taking some of the nails previously removed from the attic floorboards, Koehler pushed them into the holes of rail sixteen. They slid easily into the joists and ended flush with the plank. Koehler also examined rail sixteen and the remainder of the attic board with a magnifying glass. Both boards were of the exact same type of wood, and the grains matched as well. There was a missing piece approximately one inch in length, but it was clear to Koehler that the two pieces of wood had once been part of the same board. Koehler ultimately concluded that rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder was created using the portion of the attic board that had been removed. at that moment, hauptmann’s fate was sealed. Koehler’s conclusions have become the cornerstone of the evidentiary case against hauptmann. Through this undeniable physical evidence, the inescapable

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey

| 185 |

rail sixteen of the ladder placed in its original position in hauptmann’s attic.

rail sixteen in place from another angle.

conclusion is that one rail of the ladder used in the kidnapping of Charles lindbergh Jr. came from a board in the attic of Bruno richard hauptmann, thus the title of this book—Hauptmann’s Ladder. Koehler’s conclusions have been criticized and called “junk science” by the ignorant and misinformed.6 however, even noted historian lloyd Gardner, who criticized almost every inch of evidence in the case, wrote: “yet no one has ever been able to demonstrate that rail 16 was fabricated evidence.”7 he further wrote: “The expert wood testimony remains, nevertheless, the most suggestive circumstantial evidence that hauptmann committed the actual kidnapping. it was, in many respects, the perfect evidence.”8

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 186 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

another angle of rail sixteen placed in hauptmann’s attic.

rail sixteen placed in hauptmann’s attic.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey

/355348t

| 187 |

modern scientists have evaluated Koehler’s work and conclusions. in 1997, an article written by shirley a. Graham, ph.d., appeared in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, a highly respected publication in the scientific world. in this article, professor Graham discusses her thorough review of Koehler’s work and writes: “after more than 60 years, his [Koehler’s] work remains sound science and unquestionably supports the verdict of the lindbergh jury.”9 in 2005, a wood analyst named Kelvin Keraga released a report of his study and conclusions after extensively studying the wood evidence for three years.10 Keraga concluded that rail sixteen did indeed come from the attic of Bruno richard hauptmann.11 Concerning accusations that police planted or somehow fabricated the rail sixteen evidence, Keraga wrote that these assertions were “based on a very complex and implausible series of coincidences combined with feats of carpentry that would be, in practical terms, impossible to perform.”12 despite the objections of historical revisionists and those who insist on hauptmann’s innocence regardless of the evidence or truth, the wood evidence has never been successfully proven wrong or dismissed as “junk science.” There are some, however, who maintain that the entire rail sixteen/attic board evidence was a policeconstructed hoax.13 in his 1976 book, anthony scaduto claims that lieutenant Bornmann cut off the piece of attic board, threw it away, placed the real rail sixteen over the attic joists, and hammered nails through the nail holes to make the incriminating marks on the joists.14 later, in 1993, scaduto amended his claim and wrote that Bornmann actually destroyed the original rail sixteen, cut the board from the attic, and produced a new rail sixteen from that very board.15 obviously, the mere fact that mr. scaduto completely changed theories without explanation substantially weakens his argument. nevertheless, when one examines both theories, it becomes apparent that neither is tenable. scaduto’s first theory involves placing rail sixteen over the joists after part of the attic board was removed and hammering nails through the four nail holes in question. The problem with this theory is that rail sixteen and hauptmann’s attic board are of the exact same type of wood and have identical grain patterns. it is not reasonable to expect that by coincidence, the two pieces of wood happened to share these unique qualities. moreover, there is a second problem. once the original attic board was removed, there would already be nail holes on the joists. hammering rail sixteen to the joists would create a second set of nail holes, which would require an explanation. since there was no second set of nail holes, scaduto’s theory is proven wrong. scaduto’s second theory involves the destruction of the original rail sixteen and the creation of a new rail out of the attic board. This would seem to explain the grains, wood types, and the nail holes on the joists. however, there is an even bigger problem with this conjecture. numerous photographs were taken of the kidnapper’s ladder

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 188 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

(including rail sixteen) well before the police ever heard the name of hauptmann. many of these photographs appeared in the newspapers, and several pictures of the ladder taken on march 8, 1932, were offered as evidence in hauptmann’s trial.16 These pictures show the exact same grain patterns that exist on rail sixteen to this day. There is no question, even to the untrained eye, that rail sixteen is the identical piece of wood photographed just days after the kidnapping.17 perhaps Jim Fisher said it best about claims of fabrication when he wrote: “The evidence is so demonstrably incriminating, hauptmann supporters have no choice but to claim it was fabricated—a charge that is easy to make, but on close examination, difficult to sell.”18 even with enough evidence to convict their suspect, the police still did not have any witnesses who actually saw hauptmann in new Jersey on or close to the day of the kidnapping. That changed on saturday, october 6, 1932, when a man named millard Whited entered the picture, albeit for the second time. Whited was a thirty-seven-year-old farmer and logger who owned property adjacent to lindbergh’s sourland estate. he had been questioned once before on april 26, 1932, and denied seeing anyone walking through the woods in the vicinity of the lindbergh home prior to march 1, 1932, who “acted in a suspicious manner.”19 after seeing hauptmann’s picture in the newspapers, Whited changed his mind

The kidnapper’s ladder being brought to court by samuel J. leon. The man on the right with the hat is lieutenant Bornmann.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey

/355348t

| 189 |

a close-up of the ladder and rail sixteen taken just days after the kidnapping. This photo is significant because it proves that the police did not replace the rail with a replica as alleged by some authors.

and decided that he had seen a man wearing a light suit and slouch hat on two different occasions in February 1932 near the lindbergh estate.20 The police hastily arranged a lineup and, not surprisingly, Whited picked out hauptmann as the mysterious prowler. now the police had a witness placing their man in new Jersey shortly before the crime. The obvious inference was that hauptmann was engaged in reconnaissance before the actual kidnapping. many authors and researchers are highly doubtful of millard Whited’s honesty and credibility.21 even his explanation for initially denying any knowledge is questionable. during his testimony at a subsequent hearing, Whited claimed that he thought the police were asking about a robbery supposedly committed by a man driving a “wine-colored sedan car.” since he owned such car, he was fearful they suspected him of the crime.22 This explanation is beyond dubious. it was perjury. a review of Whited’s original statement reveals that he was specifically asked, “do you know where the lindberg

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 190 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

[sic] baby is or who it’s [sic] kidnappers are?”23 Consequently, he knew full well that the police were seeking information about the lindbergh kidnapping and not some other robbery. Whited lied and committed perjury, likely for a share of the reward money. on october 8, 1934, two days after Whited’s supposed identification of hauptmann, officials in new Jersey started presenting their case before the grand jury in hunterdon County. The lead prosecutor was none other than david Wilentz, the attorney general for the state of new Jersey, who was appointed after the district attorney for hunterdon County, anthony hauck, expressed a financial inability to conduct such a large trial. hauck would stay on as one of Wilentz’s assistants during the trial. The first decision facing mr. Wilentz was exactly what charges to file against hauptmann. The lindbergh baby was dead, and the public quite clearly wanted the murderer executed. however, the law in new Jersey was not going to make this easy. Though Wilentz was confident in his evidence linking hauptmann to the kidnapping, murder was another story. The best opinion offered by dr. Charles mitchell, the mercer County coroner, was that the child was killed by a “fractured skull due to external violence,” and that the child likely died immediately or within a few minutes of the fracture.24 This opinion, along with testimony that the fatal blow occurred shortly after the kidnapping, could be used to establish that the child died in hunterdon County.25 There was no way to medically prove that the “external violence” was a deliberate act intended to kill or an unintentional accident. The evidence in its entirety pointed more strongly to a conclusion that the kidnapper dropped the child when he fell or stumbled as the ladder broke. under this theory, the best possible charge was manslaughter, a charge resulting in jail time, not a death sentence. The only possible avenue was the felony murder rule. in most jurisdictions, if a person commits a felony, and another person is killed during the course of or in furtherance of said felony, then the perpetrator is considered guilty of murder. For example, let us assume John doe commits a bank robbery. during this crime, doe points a gun at the bank clerk, who becomes frightened and dies of a heart attack. even though John doe never intended to kill the clerk, he is guilty of felony murder because the clerk died as a result of the felony doe was committing, i.e., robbing the bank. in the lindbergh case, Wilentz could present a theory that hauptmann committed a kidnapping, and the child died as a result of this crime. The evidence strongly supported this conclusion. This is where new Jersey’s laws became problematic. in order to use the felony murder rule, kidnapping would need to be a felony. in new Jersey, kidnapping was only a misdemeanor.26 a death that occurred during the course of a misdemeanor without intent to kill would only have been manslaughter. after much consideration, Wilentz found a way to make the felony murder charge stick. Though kidnapping was not a felony in new Jersey, larceny and common-law

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey

/355348t

| 191 |

burglary were. under new Jersey law at that time, common-law burglary was defined as the breaking and entering into the house of another at night, with intent to commit a felony therein.27 ergo, by slightly amending the language of the indictment, hauptmann could be charged with felony murder. essentially, the charge presented to the grand jury was that Bruno richard hauptmann, on or about march 1, 1932, willfully and maliciously broke and entered into the lindbergh home at night with the intent of committing a felony therein, i.e., the theft of the bed clothing of Charles lindbergh Jr. There can be little doubt that Wilentz and the new Jersey officials were engaging in legal gymnastics in order to subject their suspect to the death penalty. if one takes the logic of the charge to its conclusion, then it would seem that if the crime had occurred during the day, or if the baby had been sleeping naked, hauptmann could not have been charged with a capital offense and ultimately executed. interestingly, if hauptmann had been charged and convicted only of manslaughter, it is unlikely he would ever have been released. he was still facing an indictment for extortion in new york and could have been further prosecuted for two counts of illegal possession of a weapon, hoarding gold certificates, and illegally entering the united states.28 The combined jail sentences would have meant a life sentence. apparently, this was not seen as sufficient punishment. nevertheless, Wilentz and his associates spent two days presenting evidence to the grand jury. albert s. osborn offered his opinion that hauptmann was the author of the ransom notes, and arthur Koehler presented his conclusions about the kidnapper’s ladder and the attic board. millard Whited and Cecille Barr both identified hauptmann, and numerous police officers discussed their involvement with the case. during this grand jury presentation, Charles lindbergh first testified that he recognized the defendant’s voice as the one he heard yelling from st. raymond’s Cemetery. on october 9, 1934, at around 1:30 p.m., Bruno richard hauptmann was formally indicted for the murder of the lindbergh baby.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 192 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 22 |

extradition

on the same day hauptmann was indicted, new Jersey Gov. a. harry moore signed an extradition warrant and sent it to herbert lehman, the governor of new york. This was the first step in bringing the accused back to new Jersey. The following day provided another news story and an event that has been used by many conspiracy theorists to boost their claims of police ineptitude and deliberate deception: the FBi formally withdrew from the investigation. anthony scaduto is one of many who claim or imply that J. edgar hoover and the FBi withdrew because of disgust over the new Jersey state police’s framing of hauptmann.1 standing squarely in the face of such assertions are memos written by hoover himself praising his agents and boasting that most of the investigation was performed by his agency and not the new Jersey state police or the new york police department. Certainly, hoover would not have claimed credit for the investigation and apprehension of a suspect if he truly believed that local authorities were framing hauptmann. later, when officials from new Jersey and new york took the lion’s share of the credit, a jealous and irritated hoover issued some memoranda questioning certain pieces of evidence, most of which he had never seen. it is unfortunate that hoover allowed his emotions and ego to cloud his judgment, as these documents have been used to build a conspiratorial case against the new Jersey police. They are of little probative value though. having received the extradition papers from new Jersey, Governor lehman wasted little time in signing them. This meant that Bruno hauptmann would be taken to new Jersey for trial unless he challenged the extradition by filing a writ of habeas corpus, which his attorney did almost immediately. on october 15, 1934, an extradition hearing was held in Bronx County supreme Court before Justice ernest e. l. hammer. it is important at this point to explain the nature of an extradition or “interstate rendition” hearing. many researchers have attempted to challenge portions of the prosecution’s case by alleging that any evidence or witness not used at the extradi| 192 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Extradition

--

/355348t

| 193 |

tion hearing was somehow flawed or weak. The theory goes that Wilentz would have used every solid piece of evidence to guarantee extradition. such an argument demonstrates ignorance of the law and of extradition hearings in general. at an extradition hearing, whether the accused actually committed the crime in question is irrelevant. so long as there is an indictment or sworn affidavit against the accused (called a relator in said proceeding), the presiding judge need only review the document to make sure it is legally adequate, i.e., the facts alleged constitute a crime. once accepted, the burden of proof falls upon the relator (accused) to demonstrate that he is not a fugitive. The only evidence admissible in support of this claim is such that proves that the person before the court: (1) is not the person charged with the crime; (2) has not been substantially charged with a crime; or (3) was not in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. The evidence presented by the relator must be uncontradicted. any and all ambiguities or conflicts are resolved in favor of the demanding state.2 The demanding state will therefore only offer evidence of the actual crime if the defendant presents proof of an alibi or a question of identity. even then, only a bare minimum of witnesses or proof is required. Consequently, any competent prosecutor will withhold most of the evidence rather than allow defense counsel an extra opportunity to cross-examine. at the start of hauptmann’s extradition hearing, attorney General Wilentz presented an indictment in proper form, and the only issue hauptmann raised was that he was not in the state of new Jersey on march 1, 1932, the date of the crime.3 Thus, the burden of proof fell upon hauptmann to substantiate his alibi. The first two witnesses called by attorney Fawcett were Christian and Katy Fredericksen, the owners of the bakery where anna hauptmann worked. Both witnesses testified that anna generally worked on tuesday evenings and Bruno usually picked her up at the end of the shift. neither witness could state for certain whether anna specifically worked on tuesday, march 1, 1932, or whether Bruno picked her up that evening. Katy was not present at the bakery on tuesdays and Christian had no recollection.4 The next witness was anna hauptmann, who promptly testified that she worked at the bakery on march 1 and that her husband arrived at the store some time between 6:30 and 7:00 that evening.5 he ate his supper there and brought anna home when her shift ended at 8:00.6 during questioning by david Wilentz, anna was forced to admit that she had no independent memory of march 1, 1932. she simply knew it was a tuesday, and her husband usually came to the bakery on tuesdays.7 Though anna said her husband “usually” picked her up on tuesdays, she stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there were some tuesdays when Bruno did not come to the bakery. she simply decided she could not remember.8 Wilentz brought forth a prior statement that anna gave to the new york police

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 194 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

in which she reported not knowing whether her husband had been by the bakery on march 1. anna admitted making that statement.9 having obtained this admission, Wilentz sat down. mr. Fawcett tried to save anna’s testimony by pointing out that she did not know that march 1 was a tuesday when she gave her statement.10 he also asked some additional questions about that evening. anna recalled that Bruno drove her home from the bakery and remained at home all night.11 presumably, this testimony was elicited to show that hauptmann could not have dropped anna at home and still driven to the lindbergh estate and committed the crime. Wilentz again questioned anna and, strangely, asked about her husband’s evenings of card playing. he tried to insinuate that tuesday was a scheduled night for cards, but anna insisted that Thursday was the regular night.12 Wilentz then changed tactics and began asking mrs. hauptmann about the broom closet in her home. she acknowledged that, as the lady of the house, she was completely familiar with the contents of the closet. she kept a tobacco box on the top shelf, which she used to store her soap coupons.13 it was a closet she used practically every day, yet she was forced to testify that she never saw a strange box or any money in that closet.14 she was also completely unaware of the gun and stash of money that her husband had hidden in the garage.15 This testimony was thoroughly devastating. it contradicted hauptmann’s entire version of events concerning how he obtained the gold certificates and would be great for the prosecution at trial. it was also completely irrelevant to the issue of extradition. Wilentz cleverly used his cross-examination to stray beyond the limits of the proceeding and obtained useful admissions. Fawcett did not bother to question anna further. Bruno richard hauptmann was the next witness to take the stand. he said that he brought his wife to the bakery for work on march 1 at around seven in the morning.16 When asked what he did after dropping off his wife, hauptmann was unsure, stating, “That i cannot exactly remember, if i worked for the majestic hotel, but as far as i can remember i took the subway and went down—i don’t know. if i went down to 6th avenue looking for a job, or i went to the majestic hotel.”17 hauptmann further explained that he spent the entire day until five o’clock either working for majestic or hanging around an employment agency looking for work. he could not recall which he did. Thereafter, hauptmann claimed to have returned home, changed his clothes, and went to the bakery to meet his wife. once there, he ate his supper, brought his wife home, and spent the entire evening there.18 at the conclusion of direct examination, the court recessed for lunch. mr. Wilentz’s cross-examination began the afternoon session. after confirming hauptmann’s testimony that he was unsure if he was working or looking for a job, he brought forth Bruno’s statement to the police that he had

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Extradition

--

/355348t

| 195 |

been working for majestic on the day of the kidnapping. Bruno explained away this discrepancy, claiming the police had not given him proper time to think.19 after a few questions about hauptmann’s whereabouts on march 1, 1932, Wilentz asked about his prior carpentry jobs. hauptmann admitted having built doors, floors, and ceilings, but vehemently denied ever building a ladder. When asked if he could build a ladder, he replied, “Well, i guess everybody—every carpenter does know it.”20 hauptmann also admitted that he previously worked at the national lumber yard in the Bronx. he was also a customer and even cashed his paychecks there from time to time.21 This was important testimony for Wilentz because portions of the kidnapper’s ladder had already been traced to that particular business. Wilentz was pretty sure that hauptmann was not going to vary from his alibi story, but felt he might as well get everything he could from the testimony, so he asked about the $20 gold note found in hauptmann’s possession during his arrest. Bruno admitted possessing it and even admitted lying to the police about where he got it.22 Wilentz accused the suspect about lying about the money in his garage and was shocked when hauptmann replied, “i told him before.”23 upon further questioning, hauptmann claimed to have told “inspector o’ryan” and insp. John lyons about the money in the garage before it was found. he did not report the money found with the gun.24 The official transcripts of hauptmann’s interrogation reveal that the suspect denied possessing any other money and do not make reference to this alleged conversation. inspector lyons would later testify that hauptmann’s assertion was a lie.25 undaunted, Wilentz had the trim board taken from hauptmann’s closet brought into court. he handed it to Bruno, who promptly admitted it was his. he further admitted that he had written the numbers, but was not sure of the other writing (the address and phone number of dr. Condon). strangely, when asked if he could say the writing was not his, hauptmann replied, “i would not say exactly, no.”26 Wilentz then brought in a piece of wood and a gun. hauptmann admitted it was his gun and that he had hidden it in a hole he had drilled in the wood. The gun was loaded when hidden.27 he further testified that he hid money in the same piece of wood by drilling holes at the other end of the board. yet, hauptmann insisted that all of the holes were drilled in october 1931. his only explanation was that he intended to use the other holes for tools, but never did.28 Frustrated by hauptmann’s odd explanations, Wilentz changed subjects and began to delve into Bruno’s past crimes. hauptmann admitted being convicted of grand larceny and receiving time in jail. he also admitted committing a crime with a gun.29 The judge refused to allow Wilentz to ask about his escape from prison, so he moved on. For the next ten or fifteen minutes, Wilentz peppered hauptmann with questions about the gold notes found in the garage, requiring him to answer specifically as to

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 196 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

how he found, dried, sorted, counted, and hid the money. he also reviewed many of hauptmann’s brokerage accounts and expenditures, even asking whether hauptmann had exchanged gold notes by buying vegetables and other small items.30 There was one brief exchange of interest between the men. Without warning, Wilentz asked, “did i understand you to say you were in Flemington a few months ago?” hauptmann admitted this and, after being asked how he got there, proceeded to give specific directions with route numbers. he agreed that the road forked just before Flemington, but denied knowing that the other direction of the fork went to hopewell.31 When Wilentz concluded his lengthy examination, mr. Fawcett had his client testify that he was not in new Jersey on march 1, 1932, and did not murder the lindbergh baby. Wilentz responded by directly accusing hauptmann of the crime, which he quickly denied. With that, the first exchange between hauptmann and Wilentz was over without a clear winner. hauptmann stuck to his story, and Wilentz was unable to shake him. nevertheless, hauptmann had been unable to clearly account for himself on the day and evening of the kidnapping and further admitted knowledge of the area near Flemington and hopewell. The final witness called by mr. Fawcett was howard James Knapp, the assistant treasurer for reliance property management. mr. Knapp testified that reliance took care of the payroll for the majestic hotel. When asked to produce the records, Knapp could provide only those for the second half of march 1932. These documents showed that “richard hauptmann” started work at majestic on march 21, 1932. When asked about earlier records, Knapp responded, “our records do not indicate that any such records exist at this time,—or at that time either.”32 Clearly not persuaded by this answer, Fawcett continued his line of questioning: Q: do you know whether your company employed the relator Bruno richard hauptmann from the first of march 1932 to the 15th of march 1932? a: i do not. Q: do you know where the pay roll [sic] is from the period from march 1, 1932 to march 15, 1932? a: to my belief, there is none in existence. Q: Was your company, the reliance property management inc. in business during that period, march 1, 1932 to march 15, 1932? a: it was. Q: did they have charge of the majestic apartments during that period of time? a: it did, yes. Q: about how many men did you employ at that time? a: on that building? Q: on that building, the majestic apartments during that period of time?

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Extradition

--

/355348t

| 197 |

a: over one hundred. Q: That is over a hundred a day during that time? a: over a hundred at any one period, and any one time. Q: at any time? a: at any time. Q: you don’t know what happened to those records, do you, for that period of time, march 1, 1932 to march 15, 1932? a: i have said i don’t think there are any in existence.33

Completely stonewalled by this testimony and realizing that he was getting nowhere fast, Fawcett chose to stop questioning the witness. Wilentz used his crossexamination of the witness to further hammer home that hauptmann did not start working until march 21. The claim of no payroll records for the first half of march 1932 has served as the foundation for many opinions and accusations against the prosecution and police department. in Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, anthony scaduto writes of his discovery of a receipt signed by a new Jersey official showing that assistant district attorney edward Breslin provided carbon copies of payrolls from the “majestic apartments” for the periods ending February 29, 1932, march 15, 1932, and march 31, 1932.34 sir ludovic Kennedy offered similar allegations in his book and went so far as to claim that the records not only existed, but completely exonerated hauptmann.35 mr. Knapp’s answer is troubling. it seems unlikely that a large company would have incomplete payroll records, and that said records would coincidentally begin right after a period of such relevance to the largest criminal case of the time. since mr. Knapp was merely an assistant treasurer and may have possessed only limited knowledge, it is conceivable that the records were turned over to the police without copies being retained. Thus, when Knapp examined the files, he found only records starting on march 15, 1932, and assumed the others simply did not exist. The other scenario involves a massive cover-up or deliberate deception and destruction of evidence by the police and prosecutors. mr. scaduto and sir ludovic Kennedy seem to believe the latter. however, in his recent book, lloyd Gardner reveals that the missing payroll records have since been located.36 The newly discovered records contain payroll information for the majestic hotel from February 29, 1932, through april 15, 1932, in intervals of two weeks. The first entry for “richard hauptmann” does not appear until the period ending march 31, 1932, and he is credited with working eleven days. The documents for the period ending april 15, 1932, show that hauptmann resigned his employment. of greater significance, the payroll for march 1, 1932, through march 15, 1932, definitively shows that Bruno richard hauptmann did not work for the majestic hotel on march 1, 1932.37

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 198 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Though the discovery of these documents answers the question of hauptmann’s employment, it raises new questions. since the records did exist and showed that hauptmann did not actually work on march 1, 1932, why were they not offered at the extradition hearing? The entire issue and subsequent controversy could have been avoided. mr. Gardner logically theorizes that Wilentz was hoping hauptmann would definitively claim he was working on the day of the kidnapping. he could then use the records for dramatic impeachment. But, when hauptmann testified that he was not sure if he worked that day, Wilentz did not need to use them. he could hold the records for trial if hauptmann changed his testimony.38 if this theory is correct, it would mean that david Wilentz engaged in questionable legal ethics at the hearing. at the very beginning of the hearing, mr. Fawcett requested all records of employment for his client at the majestic hotel. Wilentz provided documentation from march 15, 1932, forward and stated, “Well, you have asked us for the record. i am telling you it is the record. That is how we got it from them and that is the record we have, together with checks of payment.”39 mr. Fawcett further inquired, “have you further record from the reliance property management, inc. or the majestic hotel?” Wilentz replied, “Well, first i would like to know what my adversary is going to do about the papers he now has.”40 Fawcett then entered all of the documents provided into evidence, but seemingly forgot to question again about the existence of further records.41 mr. Wilentz may very well have had these records, but he avoided directly answering the original question.42 This would seem to support mr. Gardner’s hypothesis that Wilentz wanted to hold these back for a dramatic surprise. nevertheless, such an action is of questionable legal ethics. The entire purpose behind disclosure of evidence is to avoid surprises and allow defendants the opportunity to review the evidence against them. if Wilentz was in possession of these records, he should have turned them over. The conclusion of mr. Knapp’s testimony marked the end of mr. Fawcett’s case. it now fell to attorney General Wilentz to offer some evidence in contradiction. he started his case by calling investigator Frank Kelly. Kelly testified that he was the first person to open the ransom note found in the lindbergh nursery. he identified the original letter and envelope, and these were entered into evidence without significant objection.43 Kelly was followed to the stand by James phelan, an employee of Colonel Breckinridge. phelan explained that he received the ransom note addressed to Breckinridge and delivered it directly to his employer in princeton, new Jersey. he had read the note and was able to identify the original by the symbol at the bottom and the general nature of the script. The second note was entered into evidence.44 having entered two of the ransom notes into evidence, Wilentz called one of his handwriting experts, albert s. osborn, to the stand.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Extradition

--

/355348t

| 199 |

after setting forth his qualifications as a handwriting expert, osborn was shown samples of hauptmann’s writing taken at the police station and several other examples, including six automobile registration cards. over Fawcett’s repeated and vociferous objections, osborn testified that each document had been written by the same hand.45 Before further testimony could be taken, Judge hammer noted the time and ordered a recess until 11:00 a.m. the following morning. The next day, october 16, 1934, mr. osborn returned to the stand and testified that the ransom notes identified by phelan and Kelly, as well as two other ransom notes,46 were written by the same man. he also testified that hauptmann’s automobile registration cards and handwriting samples were written by the same person who wrote the ransom notes.47 essentially, osborn’s opinion was that hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. at this point, Wilentz had probably presented enough evidence to obtain extradition. Wanting to be absolutely sure, he called det. James petrosino as his next witness. The detective testified to searching hauptmann’s garage on september 20, 1934, and finding nearly $14,000 in gold certificates. he and another officer checked the serial numbers and confirmed the money was part of the lindbergh ransom.48 petrosino was followed to the stand by insp. John lyons, who rebutted hauptmann’s claim that he revealed the location of the money before the police discovered it.49 Wilentz then called insp. henry Bruckman, who identified the trim board taken from hauptmann’s closet. he had ordered its removal from the closet when he discovered dr. Condon’s address and phone number written on it.50 Bruckman stated he was present when hauptmann was shown the writing on the wood. Wilentz asked, “When that board, exhibit a for identification, was shown to him, did he state anything as to the writing thereon?” Bruckman replied, “yes, he said he wrote it.”51 Wilentz’s final witness was millard Whited,52 who repeated his story of seeing a man near the lindbergh estate in late February 1932. When asked who the man was, Whited answered, “The man named hauptmann.”53 For a more powerful effect, Wilentz asked the witness to step down from the witness stand and point to the person he was identifying. Whited walked over to hauptmann and placed his hand on his shoulder.54 returning to the witness stand, Whited was asked why he remembered hauptmann. he responded, “simply because he was a strange face that stepped in front of me.”55 mr. Fawcett challenged the story on cross-examination, asking the logger about his initial statement to the police. Whited claimed to be have been fearful of being suspected of a robbery. he also brazenly lied under oath by stating that the officer who came to his house on the night of march 1 never asked about the kidnapping.56 With Wilentz’s case completed, mr. Fawcett requested the opportunity to call

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 200 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

rebuttal witnesses. his first three witnesses—William diltz Whithead, William diehl, and George e. J. lenz—all testified that millard Whited had a poor reputation in his community for veracity and honesty.57 Fawcett recalled investigator Kelly to the stand, though for no understandable reason. The questions asked of him were largely irrelevant and offered nothing to the proceeding. Finally, Fawcett called the last witness of the proceeding: Bruno richard hauptmann. hauptmann examined the ransom notes and declared he had not written them, saying, “That is not my handwriting. That is the first time i saw them notes.”58 he also denied being in new Jersey in January, February, march, or april 1932 and insisted he had never seen millard Whited prior to the identification at the Bronx County Jail.59 at the conclusion of testimony, court was recessed until eight o’clock that evening for the judge to consider and render his decision. hauptmann was returned to his cell to wait. Three hours later, all parties were back in court for the decision. Judge hammer seated himself at the bench and announced, “my conclusion is that the relator has not conclusively established that he was not in the demanding state at the time the crime alleged was committed.”60 he denied the writ of habeas corpus and ordered hauptmann be extradited to new Jersey.61 on motion by mr. Fawcett, a stay was granted until 4:45 p.m. on october 19, so an appeal could be filed with the appellate division.62 true to his word, Fawcett filed an appeal alleging error by the court and newly discovered evidence regarding hauptmann’s work status. The “newly discovered evidence” was an affidavit from Joseph Furcht, hauptmann’s boss at majestic, alleging he had hired hauptmann on February 27, 1932. he also believed that hauptmann started work on march 1, 1932.63 he would later issue a second affidavit on october 23, 1934, noting that while he had hired hauptmann on February 27, he did not actually begin working until after march 15, 1932.64 The appellate division issued its decision on october 16, 1934. The unanimous court affirmed the decision of Judge hammer.65 as for the new evidence, it was deemed “cumulative and not in itself conclusive.”66 Within hours of the ruling, hauptmann was taken from his cell and placed in the back of a police car. along with several other vehicles and a pair of motorcycles, the car started the two-hour journey to Flemington, new Jersey.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Bull of Brooklyn

/355348t

| 201 |

| 23 |

The Bull of Brooklyn

The following monday morning, a meeting was held in the chambers of Judge Thomas W. trenchard, the man assigned to preside over hauptmann’s trial. trenchard was in his early seventies and had white hair and glasses. he was known as a compassionate man with a reputation for fairness and considered to be an excellent judge. at the meeting, Judge trenchard met with david Wilentz, anthony hauck, and James Fawcett, the attorneys for new Jersey’s biggest trial. two decisions were reached at this meeting. First, hauptmann would be arraigned that Wednesday morning, october 24, 1934. second, the trial would begin on January 2, 1935. The parties had roughly seventy-two days to prepare. on tuesday, lieutenants Keaten and Finn interviewed a man named Gus Kassens. he had been hired the same day as hauptmann by reliance property management. he confirmed that while he and hauptmann had been hired in February 1932, work at the majestic hotel was not available for them until after march 15. any questions about hauptmann working on the day of the crime seemed to be fading.1 The following day saw another encounter between Bruno hauptmann and John “Jafsie” Condon. disappointed with Condon’s actions at the initial lineup, the police and the prosecution hoped that a second meeting at the Flemington jail could shore up his identification. By this point, Condon was really the only potential fly in the ointment. What actually occurred at this meeting is the subject of some conjecture. We have three different versions: hauptmann’s, Condon’s, and trooper hugo stockburger’s. in hauptmann’s account, Condon ends up screaming, “no! i cannot testify against this man! i will not testify against this man!”2 in a conversation with his wife the next day, which was overheard by a German-speaking state trooper,3 hauptmann recounted the entire meeting. he made no reference to Condon, insisting he would not testify. in fact, hauptmann told his wife that Condon kept calling him John.4 if Condon had actually screamed that he would not testify, hauptmann would have mentioned it to anna. Condon was the only person who actually saw the

| 201 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 202 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

kidnapper and any statement by him of Bruno’s innocence would have virtually assured his freedom. it is inconceivable that hauptmann would not have excitedly told his wife about such wonderful news. There was a second conversation between Bruno and anna on november 3, 1934. This was also overheard by trooper stockburger. Bruno made this astounding statement: “i have no enemies except one, Condon.”5 if Condon truly expressed an unwillingness to testify, there would be no reason for hauptmann to consider him an “enemy.” hauptmann’s version should be rejected as a lie. John Condon’s rendition of the meeting is equally unbelievable. according to Jafsie, the two men had a long talk in German and Condon appealed to Bruno’s sense of justice and fair play. hauptmann supposedly began to cry and Condon “brushed from his face a tear that clung there.” Just as hauptmann was about to break down and confess everything, a jail guard interrupted. had this not occurred, Condon wrote, he might have confided the truth to him.6 For rather obvious reasons, Condon’s account of the meeting must also be rejected. it is simply too much to believe that hauptmann wept at Condon’s words, and Condon wiped away the tears. We are thus left with trooper stockburger’s report detailing the confrontation. There is no inherent problem with this version, and it is likely the closest to the truth. according to stockburger, Colonel schwartzkopf, david Wilentz, and anthony hauck were all present when Condon approached the prisoner. Condon: you have seen me before? Hauptmann: i saw you once, this is the second time. Condon: do you remember the word d-e-u-t-s-C-h?

Condon asked for paper and wrote two words in German before presenting it to hauptmann. Condon: do you remember these two words i wrote in German letters, they made trouble for me. The new york police called me wacky and screwey [sic], do you know what that means? i have never found it in the dictionary. Hauptmann: (no answer) Condon: The night i met you on the bench in the park i told you i was under oath. do you know what that means? am i talking too fast for you? you had your coat collar turned up and i asked you why and you told me that you had a cold and i offered to send a man who was waiting for me in a car nearby to a drug store and you refused. i felt your coat and i offered to get another one for you. you asked me if i came alone, or if i brought the police with me and i told you that i was all alone. i told you that i was a go-between. you told me that you had to do it because they had something on you. i asked if you were German and you said . . .

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

The Bull of Brooklyn

| 203 |

Condon wrote the word “scandanavian” [sic] on the pad for hauptmann to read. Condon: . . . we agreed to use . . .

Condon wrote “Johann” on the pad, which is the German version of “John.” Hauptmann: The first time i met you was in the lineup. i had nothing to do with the lindbergh case. Condon: This brings us to the middle of the story. This is divided into four parts. The house, the meeting in the park, the kidnapping and the murder. The meeting in the park had nothing to do with case, there was no crime committed, there was no money passed. i didn’t have lindbergh’s money. i had $1,000.00 of my money. i had $998.00 and i had to sell my pet fiddle for $2.00 to make up the $1,000.00. at that time, Colonel lindbergh had $3,300.00, that’s all the money he had due to the stock market, and i told him if it was his brother i wouldn’t do it but for the baby, i tried to get the baby back. Colonel Breckinridge told me i was afraid but i don’t know such a word. i am not afraid of the police or anyone, although the whole world is against me. Fingers are pointed at me, there he goes he passed the ransom money. i am not one of the ordinary crowd, i am an educated man and was a professor in College. John, i don’t mean to call you John, i went to Canada where there was 20 inches of snow, to the swamps of mexico and to los angeles. i have spent my money. if you tell the truth, i will help you and i am not going to ask anyone for help. i have suffered a lot, my wife is crying every day. Hauptmann: no one will ever know how much i have suffered. if i know anything about it i would tell for the sake of my wife and baby. Condon: John, is there anyone higher? Hauptmann: What do you mean higher? Condon: do you know al Capone, did you ever hear of him? Hauptmann: no, i don’t know gangsters, and if i did have something to do with it, i wouldn’t be here today. Condon: do you mean you? Hauptmann: i have always loved children in Germany and here. Condon: i heard that you were an expert bomber during the war under the German flag. Hauptmann: yes, i have 80 prizes and i saved several lives, but the newspapers never print good things about a man’s history. Condon: no lawyer in this world will help you and no one but yourself, by telling the truth. Hauptmann: i can’t tell anymore. i can’t make up a story. Condon: no, don’t tell stories, tell the truth and it will always stand up. But how did you get the money?

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 204 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Hauptmann: i have told that already. Condon: oh, you did, and how did you come to write my phone number on a board in your closet? Hauptmann: That’s what i always do. i was following up the case like everybody and wrote the number on the board. Condon: i also write things on the wall or on mirrors to have it handy. you are all alone and you are the only one to help yourself from going to the chair. Hauptmann: i am going to get out of it. i haven’t done anything. Condon: you want to think of your baby, your mother, and your wife. your wife has stuck with you right along. Were you glad to see me? Hauptmann: yes, it feels good to talk to somebody. Condon: i will come again with the permission of the man in charge. Hauptmann: i had nothing to do with it, if i would know just a little about the case, i would tell about it. Condon: i believe you, but the evidence is against you and only you can help yourself. Think of your mother, how happy she would be if i could send her a telegram that you are free, that you are not guilty. are you glad i came to see you? Hauptmann: yes, you are welcome.7

Their conversation over, Condon and the other gentlemen left, leaving hauptmann alone in his cell. Whether Condon was able or ready to declare an identification at this point is not clear. Condon claimed in his book that, just prior to the conversation with hauptmann, he told david Wilentz that hauptmann was John and he would swear to it in court. he also insisted that Wilentz not reveal this to the public until Condon testified at trial. Wilentz agreed.8 author Jim Fisher tells a different story. in The Lindbergh Case, Fisher writes that Condon was brought to a private meeting with david Wilentz immediately after he spoke with hauptmann. Wilentz demanded to know if Condon could identify the prisoner, and Condon still refused to declare any identification one way or the other. Wilentz threatened to put Condon in jail and then ordered him taken from his sight.9 it cannot be determined for certain whether Condon identified hauptmann that day or not. Condon’s book is so full of questionable assertions and tales of heroic grandeur that it is hard to take seriously. Jim Fisher provides no citation to support his claim. however, an article that appeared in the New York Daily News on october 25, 1934, offers some insight. a reporter asked Wilentz about the meeting. he said he could not discuss the specifics of the meeting, but hinted that his own positive and happy demeanor and that of his staff could be interpreted however the press pleased.10 Wilentz’s statement that he could not discuss the meeting does support Condon’s claim of a request for secrecy. his mood and demeanor were such that the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Bull of Brooklyn

--

/355348t

| 205 |

Daily News headlined their article “JaFsie Condemns hauptmann as ransom taKer.”11 regardless of whether Jafsie declared his identification that day, hauptmann was taken from his cell a few hours after the meeting and brought to court for his arraignment. Judge trenchard accepted his plea of not guilty and formally announced the trial date of January 2, 1935. after the arraignment, hauptmann was returned to his cell, and Fawcett continued to prepare for the trial of his career. in just one week, James Fawcett would be pushed aside by the Bull of Brooklyn. anna hauptmann was approached by two reporters for the New York Journal with an offer to provide funds for an expensive, more famous attorney in return for exclusives from her during the trial. since there definitely was animosity brewing between mr. Fawcett and her husband, anna told the reporters she would consider their proposal. The hauptmanns’ growing distrust of Fawcett is evident from their conversations noted in the reports of trooper stockburger.12 at one point, anna actually told her husband, “When mr. Fawcett comes to see you, don’t sign anything.”13 perhaps Bruno hauptmann expressed their animosity best in a conversation he had with his wife on november 3, 1934, two days after Fawcett was fired. he said, “Fawcett was too friendly toward Wilentz. i thought that right along, all Fawcett was interested in was the money. The last time he was here, i think it was on a saturday, all he showed me was bills, 10 cents for a cup of coffee and so much for meals and gasoline. i wasn’t interested in that stuff. he never said a word about the case.”14 Whatever the reasons, anna and Bruno decided to accept the offer and notified Fawcett on november 1, 1934, that his services would no longer be required. according to anna, Fawcett responded by claiming he had done the best he could. anna’s rather cold response was that his best “wasn’t good enough” and he “should never have come over to Jersey.”15 With Fawcett gone, a new attorney entered history: edward J. reilly, known as “Big ed” and “The Bull of Brooklyn.” reilly was an attorney of great fame, reportedly having defended over two thousand clients, a fact he never hesitated to mention.16 at the height of his popularity, he would find throngs of admirers waiting for him at the courthouse steps at the end of another case.17 his skills on cross-examination were formidable, and his ability to use emotion to turn a jury his way was legendary. reilly was also as pompous as he was famous, and his style of dress reflected his personality well. in court, he generally wore a dark morning coat with a white carnation in the buttonhole, striped gray pants, and spats. out of court, he was generally seen in the company of women and alcohol, both in copious amounts. however, at the age of fifty-two, reilly was no longer in his prime. he was certainly competent and more than capable of defending hauptmann, but he was not the lawyer he once was. recent defeats had caused some to label him “death house reilly.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 206 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

anna and Bruno were very pleased to have an attorney as famous as reilly leading their defense. anna told her husband, “he is a wonderful lawyer. he told me that we will have to fight, he is different than mr. Fawcett. he was too easy.”18 For his part, reilly wasted little time living up to his billing. he held a press conference and loudly proclaimed that, while he was new to the case, he had inquired sufficiently to be persuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that his client was innocent.19 he also set up an office at the union hotel, directly across the street from the County Courthouse. to make certain everyone knew he was lead defense counsel in the biggest trial of the century, reilly ordered special stationery with the heading “The lindbergh–hauptmann trial” emblazoned across the top and a drawing of the kidnapper’s ladder in red ink along the left-hand margin. his name and title of chief defense counsel were in the upper right corner, just below the heading.20 The letterhead was tacky and quite foolish actually because it might lead some to connect the ladder with his client. Though reilly was flamboyant and perhaps tasteless, he was still an experienced lawyer. he knew that he would need a full defense team with lawyers who regularly practiced in new Jersey. after making a few inquiries, reilly settled on three men: C. lloyd Fisher, Frederick a. pope, and edgar rosencrans. Fisher had gained some knowledge of the case during his defense of the fraudster John hughes Curtis, and the passion and zeal he had demonstrated in that case would be helpful to the defense. it also did not hurt that Fisher was from Flemington. Frederick pope was chosen for his experience and knowledge of woodworking. it was hoped he could tackle arthur Koehler and the wood evidence. edgar rosencrans was chosen for his expertise in the area of constitutional law. his job would be to prepare and argue all of the motions required at a trial. The defense team was now assembled. Both sides continued to prepare for the trial, as did the entire community of Flemington. reporters, vendors, celebrities, and interested onlookers flocked to the small town in droves. By the first day of 1935, there were no vacancies at the hotel or anywhere else in the entire town. The trial of the century was ready to begin.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

The Trial of the Century Begins

| 207 |

| 24 |

The trial of the Century Begins

on January 2, 1935, the hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington was overflowing with people. in addition to the lawyers and court officers, there were reporters, photographers, celebrities, interested bystanders, and more than 150 potential jurors crowded into the tiny courtroom. The room was buzzing with anticipation as first david Wilentz and then edward reilly entered with their associates. each side went to its respective table and prepared for the chore at hand—the selection of a jury. The crowd’s buzzing increased dramatically when Colonel lindbergh himself walked into court. he took a seat directly behind the prosecution’s table with Colonel schwartzkopf. moments later, the court’s bailiff asked everyone to rise and announced the entry of Judge trenchard. The judge quickly ordered the assembly to sit, took his position in the large chair at the bench, and asked the guards to produce the prisoner. hauptmann entered with two new Jersey troopers at either side, using the same door as Judge trenchard. he was dressed in a gray, double-breasted suit that was slightly large on him. he walked without smiling to the defense table and shook hands with his attorneys before taking a seat directly between his two guards. The judge ordered the first panel of jurors to the jury box and the selection process began. The prosecution asked the men and women about their opinions of the death penalty, while the defense focused heavily on what each person had heard about the case through the media. The first juror accepted by both sides was a forty-year-old machinist named Charles Walton. as the first juror selected, he automatically became the foreman of the jury. it would be his job to read the verdict at the end of the case. during the balance of the day, the defense and prosecution were able to agree on nine more jurors: rosie pill (a forty-five-year-old widow); Verna snyder (a thirty-sixyear-old housewife); Charles F. snyder (a forty-seven-year-old farmer); ethel stockton (a thirty-two-year-old legal secretary); elmer smith (a forty-two-year-old insurance salesman); robert Cravatt (a twenty-eight-year-old educational supervisor);

| 207 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 208 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

philip hockenbury (a forty-eight-year-old railroad worker); George Voorhees (a fifty-four-year-old horse farmer); and may Brelsford (a thirty-eight-year-old housewife). after mrs. Brelsford was selected, Judge trenchard noted the late hour and gaveled the day to a close. hauptmann was removed to his cell, and the lead attorneys from both sides were verbally assailed by a press hungry for any comment for the evening reports. neither attorney disappointed. The crowd in attendance grew even larger on the second day of the trial. only two jury selections remained, and most expected to hear opening arguments and quite possibly testimony. The final two jurors were chosen rather quickly. They were liscome Case, a sixty-two-year-old retired carpenter, and howard Biggs, a fifty-five-year-old unemployed bookkeeper. With the jury seated and ready, Judge trenchard recognized david Wilentz for his opening statement. he stood, cleared his throat, and began with a traditional and formal statement: “may it please your honor, mr. Foreman, men and women of the jury.”1 he paused for a moment. The courtroom, completely filled to the rafters, was silent as a tomb. all eyes focused intently on the attorney general, and every ear strained to hear each word. Wilentz continued his opening statement by reminding the jury that the charge against the defendant was the murder of Charles lindbergh Jr. he cited the law of new Jersey, which held that when an individual is killed in the commission of a burglary, said killing is murder. he also cited law providing that where an individual receives a fatal blow in one county, but dies in another, the charge of murder could lie in either county.2 obviously, the attorney general was anticipating arguments to be made by the defense and taking preventative measures. leaving behind the dry words of the law, Wilentz dove into the facts of the case, telling the jurors that Charles lindbergh Jr. was “a happy, normal, jovial, delightful little tot . . . blue eyed, curly headed, blond haired.”3 The attorney general continued, “he had been playing around that entire day with the family, and on the night of march 1, 1932, that child was killed; and the state will prove to you jurors that the man who killed and murdered that child sits in this very court room—the gentleman in the custody of the sheriff ’s guards right in the rear of the distinguished members of the Bar who make up the defense counsel.”4 Wilentz charged that hauptmann brought his homemade ladder to the lindbergh estate, placed it against the side of the home, and entered the nursery “with the intent to commit a battery upon that child and with the intent to steal the child and its clothing.”5 While carrying the child down the ladder, a rail broke, causing hauptmann and the child to fall. The child struck his head during the fall and was “instantaneously killed.”6

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Trial of the Century Begins

/355348t

| 209 |

The jury for the “trial of the century.” From left to right (first row) are elmer smith, ethel stockton, Charles snyder, Verna snyder, rosie pill, and Charles Walton. From left to right (second row) are robert Cravatt, philip hockenbury, George Voorhees, may p. Brelsford, liscome Case, and howard Biggs.

The attorney general told the jury that hauptmann discarded his ladder and “ripped the sleeping garment of that child off its body; because he didn’t need the child, as we will show, he needed the sleeping garment.”7 Then, a few miles away, he “scooped up a hastily improvised and shallow grave and put this child in face downwards and . . . went on his way to complete the rest of his plans in this horrible criminal endeavor.”8 Wilentz described the lindberghs’ discovery that their child was missing and the ransom note. he detailed the initial investigation and the series of ransom notes sent by the kidnapper. he recalled the entry of dr. Condon and the series of meetings in the two cemeteries. he discussed the exchange of $50,000 and Colonel lindbergh’s fruitless search for his child.9 Then lowering his voice and slowing his speech ominously, Wilentz told the jury of the grisly remains of the lindbergh baby found on may 12, 1932, by a trucker walking into the woods. he even described the condition of the body in vivid detail, likely to arouse sympathy and horror from the men and women who would decide hauptmann’s fate.10 pausing momentarily for dramatic effect, he changed course and told the jury of hauptmann’s arrest, recalling the $10 gold note spent by the defendant at the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 210 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

gas station, the $20 ransom bill found on his person when he was arrested, and the nearly $14,000 of gold certificates found in his garage. he even gave a mocking rendition of hauptmann’s explanation for having the money, clearly expressing his disbelief.11 Wilentz discussed the trim board with Condon’s address and phone number and hauptmann’s admission of writing it.12 Wilentz turned to the kidnapper’s ladder, telling the jury, “one rung of that ladder, one side of that ladder, comes right from his attic, put there with his own tools, and we will prove it to you, no matter how difficult it may sound—we will prove it to you so that there will be no doubt about it.”13 “There has to be a motive for it and you probably know it by this time,” Wilentz persisted. “he committed this crime, he planned it for many months, because he wanted money—money—money—lots of money he wanted, and he got it.”14 his voice rising, the prosecutor alleged that hauptmann wanted “a life of luxury and ease so he would not have to work.” Wilentz’s face showed his anger and outrage. “he quit his job the day he collected the $50,000, the very day!” Wilentz shouted. he provided a list of a few items hauptmann bought with the ransom money, including trips to Florida and hunter island, a $400 radio, and even sweepstakes tickets.15 pausing for breath, Wilentz concluded his opening remarks. “now men and women of the jury, if we do not prove these facts to you, why, you acquit him, you acquit him; if we do not prove them to you, you acquit him. But if we do, as we are confident we will be able to, and as we expect to, let me just tell you, representing the state of new Jersey, and this state will not compromise with murder or murderers. We demand the penalty of murder in the first degree.”16 Wilentz had barely sat down when his adversary stood and addressed the court. “if your honor please,” reilly offered, “i move now for a mistrial on the impassioned appeal of the attorney General, not being a proper opening, but merely a summation and a desire to inflame the minds of this jury against the defendant before the trial starts.”17 despite reilly’s eloquence, Judge trenchard merely replied, “The motion is denied.”18 in modern trials, the defense attorney would normally present his opening statement right after the prosecutor. however, legal procedure in new Jersey at that time did not require an opening statement from the defense until after the prosecution rested its entire case. The gathered assembly waited, anticipating the first witness. Would it be lindy? or maybe Jafsie? Wilentz stood and disappointed most of the room when he called Walter roberts as his first witness. Walter roberts was a civil engineer and surveyor from Flemington with twentyeight years of experience. his testimony was merely to identify various maps and diagrams. Through his testimony, Wilentz entered into evidence a map of the two-mile

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Trial of the Century Begins

/355348t

| 211 |

radius around lindbergh’s estate in hopewell,19 a diagram of the southeast corner room of the second floor of lindbergh’s home,20 a map of outlines of the lindbergh home measured from the outside,21 the first- and second-floor plans of the lindbergh home,22 and a map of the immediate area around the hopewell estate.23 These exhibits were offered as illustrations and useful aides for further testimony. When witnesses testified about the hopewell estate or mentioned where various things happened or items were found, the jury would have a visual reference of the area in question. The cross-examination of Walter roberts was surprisingly lengthy, lasting the balance of the morning and continuing into the afternoon session after lunch break.24 The defense was clearly sending a message to david Wilentz that even the most minor witness would be thoroughly challenged. The second witness of the trial, anne lindbergh, was more dramatic. The visibly nervous woman slowly made her way to the witness chair and, once seated, fidgeted with her hands, waiting for a question. Wilentz started slowly to give the witness a chance to relax and become more comfortable. anne recalled the decision to remain at hopewell on march 1 due to the baby’s illness over the previous few days. she described her activities during the day, including her walk around the grounds and waving to her son as he peered out the nursery window while being held by his nursemaid, Betty Gow.25 With anne getting more comfortable, Wilentz asked specific questions about the baby, including, “Was he a normal child?” to which anne responded, “he was perfectly normal.”26 This question was offered in response to very cruel rumors circulating that the lindbergh baby was deformed. anne described her son as healthy with golden, curly hair and blue eyes. he was able to talk and was playful.27 she was given a picture, which she promptly said was of her son. Wilentz entered the photo into evidence.28 Wilentz also had mrs. lindbergh identify photographs of the child’s nursery with various shots of the crib, dresser, and furniture.29 anne described how she and Betty Gow dressed her son for bed that fateful evening. Betty cut a flannel petticoat into a small shirt for the child, sewing it together with some blue thread. a sleeveless wool shirt was placed over the homemade one. The baby was also given a pair of diapers and a covering of rubber pants. The child was then placed into a one-piece dr. denton’s sleeping suit. Thumb guards were placed on the child as well. Wilentz presented anne with the remnants of the wool shirt and homemade flannel shirt recovered from the baby’s corpse. she handled them tenderly and identified them as the clothing her son was wearing on march 1, 1932.30 next, Wilentz produced the sleeping suit, which had been mailed by the kidnapper to dr. Condon. he gently asked, “and is it the sleeping suit then that your son wore that night as he went to bed?’ anna examined it and replied, “it is.”31 anne

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 212 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

was shown the thumb guard that Betty Gow found on the driveway of the estate. she identified it as belonging to her son.32 With all of the physical evidence now entered, Wilentz asked mrs. lindbergh to focus on the troubling events after her son was asleep. she walked the jury through the entire evening, culminating with the terrible discovery that her son was kidnapped. “you haven’t seen that child since the first of march, 1932, have you?” Wilentz asked. she softly answered, “no.”33 When Wilentz finished with the witness, mr. reilly stood and said, “The defense feels that the grief of mrs. lindbergh requires no cross examination.”34 reilly’s decision not to cross-examine anne lindbergh was indicative of his experience as a litigator. any attempt to press the distraught mother would have angered the jury and accomplished very little. author lloyd Gardner suggests that reilly should have questioned her about the thumb guard and the condition of the bed clothing when the child was discovered missing.35 Through the eyes of a history professor, such tactics might make sense. Viewing it through the eyes of an attorney experienced in litigation, reilly made the right call. There were audible gasps when Wilentz announced Charles lindbergh as the next witness. The tall, lean aviator walked confidently to the witness chair. he was more relaxed than his wife, no doubt from the years of dealing with an adoring public and insatiable news reporters. he sat with his legs crossed and his hands clasped across his lap. he leaned slightly forward, almost as if eager for the task at hand. Though Wilentz had started slowly with mrs. lindbergh, he wasted no time with the lone eagle. lindbergh recounted his movements during the afternoon and early evening on the day of the crime. after finishing his work for the day, he returned home, arriving at nearly half past eight.36 lindy told the jury that he had eaten supper with his wife and then retired to the living room for a few minutes to relax. While there, he heard a cracking sound, which he described as the sounds made by the slats of an orange crate falling off a chair.37 Wilentz followed this with an extremely leading question, “Was it the sort of noise that would come with the falling of a ladder?” lindbergh answered, “yes, it was, if the ladder was outside.”38 skipping ahead to ten o’clock that evening, lindbergh testified that he was in the library reading when Betty Gow appeared asking if he had the baby. sensing trouble, lindbergh hurried to the nursery and discovered his son was missing. he gave a detailed description of the nursery and condition of the child’s crib, including the discovery of the first ransom note on the windowsill.39 Wilentz handed the first ransom note and its envelope to lindbergh, and he positively identified them as the ones recovered in the nursery. Wilentz had the note entered into evidence and read it aloud for the jury.40

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Trial of the Century Begins

/355348t

| 213 |

lindbergh’s testimony continued with the arrival of the police and the discovery of the footprints and the kidnapper’s ladder. he did not recall seeing his wife’s footprints. Wilentz did not ask the witness about the discovery of the ladder and footprints in great detail, as he intended to do this with his police witnesses later in the trial. Wilentz handed lindbergh another ransom note and envelope. lindbergh reviewed them and identified them as the second letter from the kidnapper. They had arrived at his home on march 4, 1932. Both items were entered into evidence and Wilentz read the letter to the juror with special emphasis on the misspelled words.41 as it was nearly five o’clock, and since Judge trenchard had already warned people who were trying to leave early, it was decided to recess for the day and continue the testimony at 10:00 a.m. the following morning.42 as would happen every day until the conclusion of the trial, hauptmann was escorted to his cell, and the news media raced for their telephones and telegraphs to meet deadlines. The third day of trial began not with lindbergh’s testimony, but with an angry statement by the judge: i very much regret that i have to speak of a matter this morning which relates to the matter of taking photographs here while the Court is in session. i thought that it was perfectly understood between the Court and photographers and everybody else, that no photographs were to be taken here while the Court is in session. apparently, it was not understood, or, if understood, the order was disobeyed. i say apparently, because some things have been brought to my attention which lead me to think that there were some photographs taken here yesterday while the Court was in session. now, that must not occur again. if it does occur again, the Court will be obliged to take measures as the Court deems expedient in the matter. i hope i will not have to refer to that subject matter again.43

he did not explain what “things” were brought to his attention, but his meaning was plain. no pictures were to be taken during the trial. it would not, however, be the last time Judge trenchard would become angry with the news media. his later actions would indirectly result in misinformation about the trial’s verdict. With the judge’s lecture complete, Charles lindbergh resumed the stand, and the trial continued. in order to refresh the jurors’ recollection of the prior day’s testimony, Wilentz had lindbergh again discuss the finding of the ransom note in the nursery and the ladder and footprints outside the house. lindbergh added that a dowel pin and a chisel were found by police and brought into his house.44

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 214 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The witness was handed an envelope and two notes. lindy identified them as the notes and envelope that his attorney, Colonel Breckinridge, received from the kidnapper. Wilentz had them marked for identification,45 but did not offer them into evidence. he would not be able to do so until Colonel Breckinridge testified and offered his own identification. to clarify, a document or piece of evidence can be accepted by a court into evidence only if it has been identified and a proper foundation laid. in this instance, since the notes were mailed to Colonel Breckinridge, his testimony would be required to complete the necessary legal foundation. The next topic of discussion was the entry of dr. Condon. lindbergh told the jury of Condon’s phone call and evening visit to the sourland estate. Condon brought two notes with him, which he had received from the kidnapper. Wilentz presented the original notes and envelopes to lindbergh, who confirmed them as genuine. The documents were marked for identification, but he did not offer them into evidence. he intended to wait until Jafsie himself took the stand.46 Based on these notes, lindbergh agreed to let Condon be the go-between. negotiations continued between the kidnapper and Condon until lindbergh was summoned to Condon’s home to examine a package containing the child’s sleeping garment that the kidnapper had sent to Condon. in rapid succession, lindbergh examined and identified the large envelope, the ransom letter, and the child’s sleeping suit.47 Wilentz skipped ahead to the most dramatic part of the aviator’s testimony, the exchange at st. raymond’s Cemetery. lindbergh told of Condon receiving a note from a cab driver advising them to go to the Bergen Greenhouses on east tremont avenue.48 he further recounted the second note that Condon found at the florist instructing him to walk down Whittemore avenue in the direction of the dark cemetery.49

Bergen’s florist, where one of the notes from the kidnapper was left.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Trial of the Century Begins

/355348t

| 215 |

lindbergh described waiting in the car while Condon cautiously walked toward the graveyard. While the doctor was near the gate, lindbergh said he heard a voice with a foreign accent cry out, “hey doctor!”50 in response Condon entered the cemetery to meet the kidnapper. Wilentz walked lindbergh through the exchange of the ransom money and the receipt of the note advising that his son was on “Board nelly.”51 he recalled his flights up and down the atlantic Coast searching in vain for his son and the fictional boat. he also recounted seeing his son one final time as a decayed and rotting corpse on the coroner’s table. one question from david Wilentz was the highlight of the entire direct examination. “Who’s [sic] voice was it, Colonel, that you heard in the vicinity of st. raymond’s Cemetery that night saying, ‘hey doctor’?” lindbergh’s headline-grabbing reply was, “That was hauptmann’s voice.”52 some authors believe that the trial was over once lindbergh made this identification.53 While the trial was not completely over, the testimony was especially powerful in light of lindbergh’s fame and popularity. as edward reilly stood for his cross-examination, he knew he had his work cut out for him. he had to effectively damage lindbergh’s testimony, but could not be seen as disrespectful. The witness was not only a grieving father, but also the most popular and beloved man in the country. “are you armed, Colonel?”54 This question was based upon rumors circulated by various newspapers that lindbergh had carried a pistol in a shoulder holster on the first day of testimony. The media sensationalized it and printed rumors that lindbergh intended to shoot hauptmann or anyone who dared make insinuations about his private life.55 Wilentz flew out of his chair in objection, but lindbergh calmly opened his jacket, saying, “no, i am not.”56 The defense attorney suggested that lindbergh’s neighbors might have been involved in the crime, asking, “did you ever hear of any hostility to you in that neighborhood prior to the kidnapping?” lindbergh calmly denied it.57 moving to another line of questioning, reilly quizzed the witness on his servants at hopewell and how they were hired. lindbergh explained that all of his servants came highly recommended, and he had personally interviewed them for at least an hour before hiring them. not satisfied with the response, reilly demanded to know whether background checks had been performed on Betty Gow and the Whateleys. lindbergh replied, “That was thoroughly done by the police.” “did you not make any effort as a father to find out the background of the people that were in the house the night your son was snatched away?” reilly asked. “i placed my entire confidence in the police and followed their suggestions from that time on. i tried to cooperate in every way that i could,” lindbergh answered.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 216 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“Well, Colonel,” reilly sneered in a condescending tone, “as a man of the world, you certainly must have known that some of the police are not infallible, did you not?” lindbergh smiled and replied, “i think we have very good police.” his answer brought the house down with laughter, prompting the judge to call for order.58 still trying to throw suspicion on one of lindbergh’s servants, reilly got lindbergh to testify that their dog never barked that evening. The insinuation was obvious—the dog would not bark at the servants because he knew them. lindbergh responded, “i don’t recall hearing the dog bark that night. i understand that he did sometimes, but that was not a regular thing.”59 undaunted, reilly had lindbergh demonstrate the various ways to exit the house from the nursery using the diagrams already in evidence. Then he asked, “Colonel, while you were in the dining room, if the front door of your home was opened by someone, anyone could have gone up the stairway of your house and taken the baby out of the crib, couldn’t they?” “i don’t think so,” lindbergh replied. “it would have been physically possible, would it not?” “i think it would be very improbable that that could be done without our hearing it.” When asked why, lindbergh noted, “The door did not open easily. There is no door closed between the dining room and the front door of the house. There was no carpet on the stairway. i don’t think it could have been possible for anyone to come in through that door without our knowing it.”60 undaunted, reilly asked, “Then would it be possible for anyone in the house, used to the house, who knew the house, to take the baby out of the crib and bring it down the main stairs?” lindbergh acknowledged that this was possible.61 in a bold question, reilly asked if a disloyal person within the house could have successfully brought the baby down those same stairs and out a window or other exit without being heard. lindbergh admitted the possibility.62 having achieved his first significant admission, reilly turned to the nursery itself and the police investigation. When asked about trooper Kelly dusting for fingerprints, lindbergh advised that no fingerprints were found anywhere in the nursery, though he did add, “i was informed that, at the time, they did not locate any fingerprints. They were smudges.”63 in light of allegations over the years that the lack of fingerprints pointed to an inside job, lindbergh’s statement that “smudges” were found contradicts that theory. it was not that the nursery was wiped clean. it was the opposite. so many people had been in the nursery since the last time it was cleaned that all fingerprints had been smudged and made useless. reilly continued to cross-examine lindbergh, seeking detail after detail of the nursery and his actions on the night of the kidnapping, as well as his hiring of spitale and rosner. eventually, the attorney turned to the entrance of dr. Condon.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Trial of the Century Begins

/355348t

| 217 |

pointing out that the kidnapper had responded to Condon’s ad in the Bronx Home News, reilly wondered whether lindbergh found that peculiar. lindy did not. now trying to cast suspicion on dr. Condon, reilly asked, “did it ever strike you that the mastermind might insert an ad in the paper and answer it himself?” “i think that is inconceivable from practically any practical standpoint.” “you think it is?” “as a matter of fact, i tried to consider it with every individual who has been connected in any way with this case, exempting no one, whether there was any connection.”64 This line of questioning was a mistake by reilly. lindbergh had just demonstrated his confidence in the honesty of dr. Condon, who was a far more damaging witness. lindbergh’s identification of hauptmann’s voice was easily assailable, but Condon was the only man to see the kidnapper face to face. With lindbergh now vouching for him, Condon’s credibility was strengthened for the jury before they even heard from him. as if this were not bad enough, reilly posed an even worse question a few minutes later. “Colonel, i ask you, as suggested by the Court, and i assume that your answer will be that the defendant, you believe now, is guilty of the kidnapping?” lindbergh’s answer was simple and to the point: “i do.”65 reilly had now let lindbergh directly accuse hauptmann of committing the crime. it was a foolish mistake. he had been inquiring about John Curtis and lindbergh’s fruitless search off the atlantic Coast. his obvious intent was to try to show that lindbergh had believed Curtis and therefore was willing to believe any allegation, no matter how far-fetched. he could have accomplished this in his closing arguments to the jury with much better effect. asking lindbergh directly was simply poor trial tactics and an example that he was truly past his legal prime. shortly after three o’clock, lindbergh’s testimony concluded. reilly had obtained a few useful concessions, but these paled in comparison to the damage inflicted on his client.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 218 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 25 |

“der alte ist Verrückt”

Charles Williamson of the hopewell police department took the stand while the audience was still clamoring over the battle between reilly and lindbergh. he testified that he was the officer who received the initial call reporting the crime and was one of the first two officers to arrive at the sourland estate.1 he described visiting the nursery and noted seeing the envelope on the windowsill and three or four muddy impressions leading from the window to the crib. he also noticed that the southeast window was closed, although its shutters were open.2 he told the jury about his examination of the grounds outside the nursery. as best he could, he detailed the ladder imprints below the window and the footprints leading to the kidnapper’s ladder.3 Finally, Williamson recalled being approached by William allen, who reported finding the body of a baby. he drove with allen to the site to view the remains. Wilentz showed the witness the picture of the lindbergh baby already in evidence. “now, with reference to the child whose body you saw there that afternoon of may 12, 1932, will you tell us whether or not that is the child?” “yes.”4 Wilentz had the witness confirm that the body still had clothes on it. he showed him some of the clothes identified by anne lindbergh, and Williamson identified them as the same clothes found on the child’s remains.5 elsie Whateley was the state’s next witness. Wilentz was asking some background questions when elsie angrily shouted, “i would like to state here if i may that my husband was not in the habit of taking Violet sharp out!”6 she was evidently upset over the wild rumors and rampant speculation of the press about Violet and all the members of the lindbergh staff, including her late husband. reilly objected to the outburst while the courthouse exploded in laughter. Judge trenchard, after regaining order and threatening to clear the room if there were further interruptions, had no choice but to order the comment stricken. mrs. Whateley discussed the events of the day of the crime, the discovery that the child was missing, and the frantic search before the arrival of the police. she | 218 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Der Alte Ist Verrückt”

--

/355348t

| 219 |

was interrupted while describing the child as playful and normal by mr. reilly, who felt her comments were repetitive and an attempt by the attorney general to arouse the sympathy of the jury.7 on cross-examination, reilly suggested Whateley’s husband had become acquainted with dr. Condon while traveling in new rochelle. elsie denied this vehemently.8 reilly further asked whether she or her husband knew Violet sharp. she acknowledged only a passing acquaintance.9 at the end of mrs. Whateley’s testimony, the judge recessed court for the weekend. The jurors were escorted to their rooms at the union hotel. according to at least one author, the path to the hotel was lined with spectators shouting, “Burn that dutchman! send him to the chair!”10 over the weekend, the tiny town of Flemington was bursting with people and activity. Thousands of sightseers flocked to the streets, hoping to get a glimpse of a celebrity or participant in the trial. others went to look at the sourland estate or the lonely stretch of woods where the baby’s body had been found. most, however, flooded the courthouse, trying to steal souvenirs, such as slivers of wood or spittoons. They sat in different chairs, pretending to be reilly, Wilentz, Judge trenchard, or members of the jury. some even pretended to be hauptmann. it was utter chaos and a nightmare for the court guards.11 When it was finally monday morning, court resumed, and Betty Gow, the child’s nursemaid, was called as the next witness. The young lady was nervous, but clearly determined. her testimony, especially on cross-examination, would be best described as feisty. Wilentz had the witness carefully review her actions on the night of the crime, including dressing the child for bed. she was shown the remnants of the clothing found on the child’s body and the sleeping suit mailed to dr. Condon. she identified all of them.12 she also showed the jury how the nightshirt found on the baby matched perfectly with the piece of flannel she had cut it from. she also identified the blue thread used to sew the child’s shirt and produced the spool the thread from which it came.13 she was also shown the thumb guard found in the driveway and confirmed its authenticity. Finally, Gow recounted the events after the baby was discovered missing and her identification of the child’s corpse at the coroner’s office. This was important because it disputed any assertion that the body found was not that of the lindbergh baby. reilly had promised the press a lengthy cross-examination and did not disappoint them.14 it was indeed lengthy, though generally aggressive and not particularly effective. after badgering the witness with questions about her past employment and associations, reilly turned to the subject of red Johnson. he asked whether the couple had ever gone to a roadhouse, the movies, palisades park, or to the state of Connecticut. Gow admitted having gone to all these places with Johnson.15

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 220 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“do you know where red Johnson is now?” “mr. Johnson is now in norway.” “have you communicated with him?” “not recently.” “how recently?” “about six months ago.”16

suddenly shifting, reilly demanded to know how miss Gow had returned for the trial. Betty had left for her native scotland in the latter half of 1934. “Who paid your expenses?” reilly sneered. “i came back to aid justice,” Gow snapped back. reilly immediately had the answer stricken as unresponsive. The state of new Jersey had paid for her travel and lodging during the trial, the young lady explained. upon further questioning, it was learned that $650 was paid by the state for round-trip travel and hotel accommodations.17 reilly showed the witness two pictures. Gow admitted the first was her, but insisted that the second was not.18 reilly pressed the witness, insisting that the women in both pictures wore the same hat and had the same smile. he asked the witness to look at them again and argued that the second picture was a side view of her. again, Betty vehemently denied that she was the woman in the photograph.19 angrily, reilly argued, “Were you warned before you took the stand this morning that you should identify one picture and not the other?” “i was not!” Betty shouted back. The cross-examination was not going well. reilly’s attempt to bully the witness was backfiring, and his entire line of questioning seemed argumentative and without focus. Worse yet, the witness was becoming angry and agitated. Changing subjects, reilly asked about the sourland estate and the day of the kidnapping. Gow recalled the child’s cold, her traveling to hopewell to assist mrs. lindbergh, and the family’s decision to stay at the estate past the weekend. reilly asked whether she had told anyone that the lindberghs would be remaining in hopewell. she did not remember telling Violet sharp, but admitted that she had likely told red Johnson because they had initially planned to spend the evening together.20 reilly seemed to pounce on this information. he asked whether Betty had spoken with red that evening. Betty admitted that she had left a phone message for Johnson, and he had returned the call around 8:30 that evening. “Where was the telephone [call] from?” reilly asked. “it was from englewood.” “did you trace it?” “no, but i understood at that time.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Der Alte Ist Verrückt”

--

/355348t

| 221 |

“What number in englewood?” “i do not know.”

in a roaring and challenging voice, reilly shouted, “don’t you know it was from hopewell?!” Wilentz jumped to his feet, shouting, “Just a minute!” Between the question and the objection of the prosecutor, Gow shouted back, “no, i don’t know that!”21 Judge trenchard restored order, and reilly continued by noting that Betty had been out with red Johnson the evening before. “Was there any importance to the second night?” reilly asked, obviously insinuating that the two might have been linked to the crime. “yes, he was going to leave for hartford the following morning,” Betty retorted. in an arrogant and very tasteless manner, reilly asked, “monday night’s ride wouldn’t suffice, would it?” Wilentz was barely out of his chair in protest when the judge admonished, “That seems rather immaterial, mr. reilly.”22 The cross-examination droned on as reilly asked question after question about Betty’s movements on the night of the crime and her observations of the nursery both before and after the kidnapping. Finally, the attorney asked about the thumb guard found on the driveway near the gatehouse. “now there isn’t any doubt . . . that this thumb guard is in the same condition as you say you picked it up on or about april 1, 1932, is that correct?” reilly asked. “That’s correct.” after confirming the exact location where the guard was found, reilly accused Gow of planting the evidence by asking in a mocking tone, “did you drop it on your way down?” Gow responded indignantly, “i did not.” “sure about that?” “positive about that.” “and yet,” reilly continued, “with all these policemen and with all the inclement weather for the month, and with everybody passing and searching these grounds day after day night after night, you would have this jury believe that you could pick up in broad daylight on that road this bright, shiny thumb guard in the same condition it is—” “Just a minute,” Wilentz interrupted, “it is not right, if your honor please. Therefore, i object to the question. it is not shiny; therefore, i object to the question.” “i will leave it to the jury whether it is bright and shiny,” reilly countered. “no, you needn’t leave it to the jury. it is not bright and shiny; that is my view,” Wilentz corrected. sarcastically, reilly added, “and it isn’t muddy and it isn’t rusty.”23

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 222 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The judge ordered reilly to eliminate the reference to brightness from his question. instead, reilly chose not to ask the same question. rather, he asked Betty to examine the thumb guard closely. “nobody cleaned it as far as you know?” he asked. “it was in a much muddier condition when i picked it up than that.” “Who changed the condition?” “it has not been changed, but it was more dull. i should say i brushed off the dirt.” “What do you mean by saying it was in a much muddier condition when you told the attorney General this morning that it is in the same condition and just the same as it was when you picked it up?” reilly demanded. not backing down, the feisty lady from scotland countered, “it can’t possibly be in the same condition when it has been handled by people.” in a jeering and rather obsequious tone, reilly commented, “now, you are a very bright young lady, miss Gow, aren’t you?” not missing a beat, she retorted, “i am,” which not only took the steam out of reilly, but also caused the audience to break into laughter and open cheers. Gow sat back in her chair with a smile of satisfaction. if Judge trenchard was amused, he did not show it. he gaveled for silence and sternly warned the spectators to remain quiet while court was in session. turning to defense counsel, he gave permission to proceed. in what was probably reilly’s best decision of the morning, he asked for a lunch recess. When Betty Gow returned to the stand for the afternoon session, reilly showed her several pictures. she identified them as photos of herself, Violet sharp, and dr. Condon.24 For whatever reason, reilly did not refer to them again during Betty Gow’s testimony. Though Betty knew that red Johnson had previously worked on a yacht, she denied ever seeing the boat. she denied ever going out with Violet sharp socially and said she never went to new rochelle. lastly, she rejected reilly’s accusation that she had met with dr. Condon or Violet sharp on a yacht.25 reilly mercifully ended his cross-examination. he had obtained little useful information from the witness and likely angered the jury with his tactics. in Brooklyn, aggressive trial tactics were perfectly normal and acceptable. in more rural Flemington, reilly’s overbearing personality and choice of strategy were just not working. Joseph Wolf of the new Jersey state police was the next witness. he testified to being the first state trooper to arrive at the sourland estate on the night of the kidnapping. after speaking with lindbergh and examining the nursery, he went outside and discovered two marks in the mud underneath the southeast window made by a ladder. he also found one footprint in the same general area. he compared the print with his own foot, size nine, and found the print to be larger. not long after that,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Der Alte Ist Verrückt”

--

/355348t

| 223 |

he searched part of the grounds with a flashlight and found the kidnapper’s ladder some sixty to seventy feet away from the house.26 For perhaps the first time in the trial, reilly scored on cross-examination. in his many years of experience in Brooklyn courts, he had cross-examined hundreds of police officers. his tone, though brusque, was appropriate, and his questions were razor-sharp. not only was reilly able to get Wolf to acknowledge that he should have preserved the footprint or better protected the evidence, but also pulled from the officer the startling admission that he did not know if the print was from the left or right shoe.27 he did not accomplish this quickly, but through question after agonizing question, each of which made Wolf look more incompetent than the last. By the time reilly was through, Wolf had been utterly destroyed. Wilentz tried to save his witness by having him identify a photograph of the footprint, but it was far too late.28 reilly had his first triumph of the case. Wilentz’s next witness was lieutenant Bornmann. This would the first of four appearances on the witness stand for him.29 Bornmann started by covering pretty much the same ground as Wolf. he had arrived at lindbergh’s home, examined the nursery, and went to the location of the kidnapper’s ladder. Because he saw other men near the ladder whom he believed to be reporters, he picked up the ladder and brought it into the house.30 Wilentz had Bornmann describe the ladder and its general construction. he handed the ladder to Bornmann and asked if it was the same ladder he recovered that night. When the witness told him it was, he offered it into evidence.31 it is important to note that the hauptmann trial was the first criminal case of david Wilentz’s career. his inexperience was clear when he offered the ladder into evidence so quickly. in order to establish a proper legal foundation for a piece of physical evidence, an attorney must not only have the item identified, but also must show that the item is in the same or substantially the same condition as when the witness last handled it. The ladder was examined by arthur Koehler and taken completely apart quite some time after Bornmann brought it into lindbergh’s house. unless and until Koehler testified, Wilentz could not possibly get the ladder accepted into evidence. The more seasoned defense team jumped on this point, and Frederick pope offered a detailed, rational, and well-thought-out objection. trenchard took little time in refusing Wilentz’s request. he would allow the ladder to be marked for identification, but Wilentz would need to offer more testimony and proof before it could be accepted into evidence.32 Wilentz presented Bornmann with the dowel pin from the ladder and the ¾-inch chisel found in the same area as the ladder. The witness identified them, and Wilentz asked that they be marked for identification. he did not make the mistake of

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 224 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

offering them into evidence, as they would have been subject to similar objections.33 he then turned Bornmann over for cross-examination. The witness held his own with reilly as the two men discussed the layout of the nursery, Bornmann’s observations of the ransom note, and the taking of fingerprints by investigator Kelly. When reilly turned to the subject to the footprint, Bornmann wilted. “you saw a footprint right near it?” (referring to the ladder holes) “i did.” “you wanted to know whose footprint it was?” “naturally.” “you knew it wasn’t the Colonel’s, didn’t you?” “i knew it was none of the men that was found there that night.” “But, you didn’t measure the butler’s footprint, did you?” “i had his and the Colonel’s word that he hadn’t been outside.”34

after an objection by attorney General Wilentz, reilly continued in a loud, boisterous voice, “Well my goodness, you don’t believe everybody that you question when you are sent out to investigate a crime, do you?” “i take a statement from them and then investigate,” Bornmann objected. “and if you like the statement, you believe it, is that it?” reilly countered.35

By the end of cross-examination, it was clear to all in the courtroom that reilly had scored another victory. The momentum of the prosecution was slowing. The final witness of the day was investigator Frank Kelly. Wilentz was trying to be extra careful with this witness after his last two had been made to look rather unprofessional. several times he was chided for leading the witness. Kelly spoke of dusting the ransom note and envelope, as well as numerous surfaces in the nursery, for fingerprints with little results. he also discussed his examination and dusting of the kidnapper’s ladder after it had been brought into the house. Kelly also described a brief experiment he had conducted with the ladder. he brought the ladder outside and placed it into the indentations under the nursery window, confirming a perfect fit. he also noticed several marks on the stone of the house that corresponded to the exact location where the top of the ladder had rubbed against the house.36 as Wilentz finished his direct examination, it was nearly four-thirty. it had been a long day for the attorney general and a strong one for the defense. rather than turn his last witness over to reilly and risk further damage, Wilentz asked if the court might consider adjourning for the day. Without objection from reilly, the judged obliged. tuesday morning saw investigator Kelly back on the witness stand. Wilentz

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

“Der Alte Ist Verrückt”

--

/355348t

| 225 |

asked a few general questions to give the jury a basic reminder of the prior day’s testimony before turning Kelly over to defense counsel. reilly did his best to ridicule the witness. he mocked his training as a fingerprint specialist and chided Kelly for not preserving the footprint. he walked Kelly through every site and location where he dusted for prints and forced the investigator to admit his failure to recover any useful prints. trooper nuncio deGaetano followed Kelly to the witness stand. he described seeing the footprint by the ladder marks, but also saw a woman’s footprints some distance away, which he subsequently learned belonged to mrs. lindbergh. he measured the footprint by the ladder and noticed ridges in the print, causing him to believe that the perpetrator might have been wearing a heavy stocking over his feet. reilly inquired about the method used to measure the footprint. deGaetano had not used a ruler or actually measured it. instead, he only compared the print to his pocket flashlight and made a rough estimate.37 reilly returned to the defense table, knowing he had just beaten yet another police witness. needing desperately to stop reilly’s gaining momentum, Wilentz decided to call a civilian witness. eighty-seven-year-old amandus hochmuth slowly made his way to the witness stand. offers were made to assist the old man, but he stubbornly refused. When he finally sat down, he placed his hands in his lap and tried to hide their trembling. hochmuth told the court that he lived at the corner of mercer County highway and the road that led to the lindbergh home. on march 1, 1932, he was standing on his porch and observed a car. asked to give further detail, the witness continued, “Well, i saw a car coming around the corner, pretty good speed, and i expected it to turn over in the ditch. and as the car was about 25—i should judge about 25 feet away from me, the man in there looked out the window like this.” “out of the window of the car you mean?” “yes, and he glared at me like a ghost.” “What time of day was that?” “it was in the forenoon.” “and the man that you saw looking out of that automobile glaring at you in the manner that you say, is he in this room?” “yes.” “Where is he?” “alongside of the trooper there.” “alongside of the trooper?”

“yes,” the old man repeated. to make his point more emphatically, he pointed his shaking finger directly at hauptmann.38 at that exact moment, the lights in the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 226 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

courtroom went out. in the darkness, a voice boomed out, “The lord’s wrath over a lying witness!”39 When both the lights and order were restored, Wilentz asked the old man to step down from the chair and place his hand upon the shoulder of the man he was identifying. The old man slowly ambled across the courtroom and finally stopped in front of hauptmann. he placed his trembling hand on the prisoner’s knee, saying, “right here.”40 hauptmann immediately turned his head to his wife and said, “der alte ist Verrückt,” which, translated into english, means “The old person is crazy.” When hochmuth returned to the witness chair, Wilentz brought out further details. The car was dirty green and had a ladder in the back seat.41 reilly must have been concerned. This was the first witness placing his client in new Jersey on the day of the kidnapping. his cross-examination was understandably aggressive, and he made repeated accusations. “do you remember being brought to this doorway here and facing in the courtroom; do you remember that?” “yes.” “do you remember Bruno richard hauptmann sitting over here with the state troopers at that time?” “yes.” “do you remember the state trooper pointing hauptmann out to you yesterday?” “no, sir.”42

reilly demanded to know why the troopers had brought the old man to the courtroom if not to view the defendant. The witness thought for a moment and replied, “[t]he officer took me to the toilet once.”43 despite being informed that the bathroom was on the other end of the courtroom, hochmuth stuck to his story. reilly questioned the man’s age, health, and eyesight, but the witness insisted he was of fine health and maintained, “my eyes are all right.”44 some years later, amandus hochmuth’s eyesight would become highly suspect with the discovery of records from new york City public Welfare. physical examinations in June and august of 1932 revealed that hochmuth had “failing eyesight due to cataracts.”45 unfortunately for reilly, these records did not exist at the time of the trial. one news outlet reported that when hochmuth left the witness stand, he put his hand on hauptmann’s shoulder a second time and said, “i am sorry for you, young man.”46

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

| 227 |

| 26 |

“John is Bruno richard hauptmann”

With amandus hochmuth’s testimony completed, attorney General Wilentz decided to try to get his strongest piece of evidence, the kidnapper’s ladder, into evidence. he had failed in his first attempt, but now felt he could show the entire chain of custody. he called Capt. John lamb to the stand. lamb testified that he had kept the ladder in his safekeeping at all times with the exception of those few times he sent it to arthur Koehler for examination. reilly did not bother to question the witness.1 The attorney general’s next witness was arthur Koehler, who stated that he had received the ladder for analysis from Captain lamb and had returned it directly to him when it was completed.2 Wilentz did not ask Koehler any questions about his analysis or conclusions. he was saving that testimony for later in the trial. his only intention in having Koehler appear now was to get the ladder into evidence. reilly asked attorney pope to conduct the cross-examination. since pope would be arguing any motion by Wilentz to offer the ladder into evidence, it only made sense to let him question the witness. pope did an excellent job. he forced Koehler to admit that another technician had removed the original nails for analysis. he therefore could not testify from personal knowledge that the nails currently in the ladder were the originals.3 Based largely upon pope’s cross-examination, Judge trenchard denied the motion to enter the ladder into evidence.4 Wilentz called lt. John sweeney as his next witness. sweeney testified that he was at the lindbergh home on the evening of march 1 and had conducted a few experiments with the kidnapper’s ladder. First, he assembled all three pieces of the ladder and, making sure to use the marks on the ground left by the kidnapper, placed it against the house, noting exactly where the top would touch the house. using a second ladder from the garage, sweeney examined the surface of the stone wall of the house and found no marks on the wall. he therefore concluded that the perpetrator had not used all three sections.5

| 227 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 228 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

he removed the third section and repeated the same experiment using only the first and second pieces of the ladder. When he examined the area of the wall where the ladder touched, he found scrape marks on the masonry. With a magnifying glass, sweeney found small splinters of wood on the marks. he concluded that the ladder had been used in this manner during the commission of the crime.6 The testimony was going well, and Wilentz should have stopped then and there. however, he made the mistake of asking whether or not sweeney had used the second ladder to enter the nursery window. When the witness replied that he had, Wilentz had him describe exactly how he had done so.7 ignoring the stronger portion of the testimony, reilly focused completely on the use of the second ladder to enter the nursery. he pointed out that the shutters and window were already open, whereas the real kidnapper had to open them. he also highlighted that the witness never tried to carry a child or object of similar weight down the ladder.8 on redirect examination, Wilentz tried to ridicule reilly by asking, “you didn’t take the lindbergh child out of that window, did you?”9 The witness obviously said no. This foolish question, asked more out of embarrassment and anger than anything else, did not dull the impact of reilly’s questions. Because of Wilentz’s error, reilly was able to make lieutenant sweeney look foolish. Worse yet, the jury would probably forget about the strong beginning and focus instead on the weaker ending. as he often did after reilly pummeled his police witnesses, Wilentz changed pace and called a civilian witness. Joseph perrone, the cab driver from the Bronx, returned to the spotlight. he recounted in detail the night when, at the corner of Knox place and Gun hill road, he was hailed by a man and asked to deliver an envelope to the home of dr. Condon. When perrone first mentioned receiving the envelope, Wilentz asked, “Who is the man that gave you the envelope?’ “Bruno richard hauptmann.” “is he in this room?” “yes, sir.” “Come down and point him out please.”10

perrone stood, walked directly to hauptmann, and placed his hand on his shoulder. “That is the man.”11 hauptmann angrily replied, “you’re a liar.”12 reilly immediately jumped to his feet, demanding to know whether the court reporter had heard the remark. When it was learned that neither the reporter nor the judge nor david Wilentz had heard the statement, reilly pressed the matter, saying that everyone in the proximity of the defense could testify to it, and he wanted it in the record.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

/355348t

| 229 |

Judge trenchard ended the debate by announcing that the record would not be amended. however, if the defense wanted to call witnesses to the remark during their presentation of evidence, they would be free to do so.13 later, when perrone had nearly finished his testimony, Wilentz sought a second identification from the witness. “Who is the man you are referring to?’ Wilentz asked. “richard Bruno hauptmann,” perrone responded, though reciting the given names backwards. “The defendant in this case?” “yes, sir,” the witness confirmed.14 perrone seemed extremely nervous while answering questions from the prosecutor, but looked terrified as edward reilly approached him. apparently, sensing this, reilly became domineering and aggressive, hoping to completely intimidate the cab driver. to everyone’s surprise, perrone held his composure and withstood reilly’s blistering cross-examination. The most reilly could get from the witness was an admission that he had not noticed whether the man who gave him the note was wearing gloves. “Who suggested to you that you should answer ‘i don’t remember whether his hand was covered or not’?” reilly roared. “nobody ever said anything to me.” “you won’t say his hand was not covered and you won’t say it was covered, will you?” “i didn’t take notice at the time.” “you know, don’t you, that if his hand wasn’t covered, that the imprint of his fingermarks were on the envelope he gave you, right?” “i don’t know.”15 reilly was so disturbed by perrone’s refusal to admit whether the man who gave him the letter wore gloves that he accused the prosecution of instructing the witness to lie. it should be noted that perrone referenced the question of gloves in his may 20, 1932, statement to the police. on page 1 of his six-page statement, he wrote: “doctor Condon asked me if he had gloves on and i told him i did not notice the gloves.”16 Beyond this minor admission, and despite attempting to bully the witness to the point where almost every person in the room was becoming annoyed, reilly was unable to shake perrone’s story. Worse yet, the jury was probably feeling sympathetic toward the cab driver and would be more likely to accept his testimony. to further support perrone’s testimony, david Wilentz called James J. o’Brien, another cab driver. o’Brien basically testified that perrone showed him the envelope he had received before delivering it. he saw dr. Condon’s name and address on the envelope. since there was no real dispute that perrone had received a letter addressed to Condon, reilly did not bother questioning him.17 The next witness was p. milton Gaglio, a friend of dr. Condon. his testimony was broken into two parts. First, he revealed that he drove Condon to the lindbergh

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 230 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

estate. This came about after Condon called lindbergh from max rosenhain’s restaurant and was asked to deliver the letters he had received. Gaglio and rosenhain drove Condon to the lindbergh home, met briefly with lindbergh, and left Condon there for the evening.18 The second part of his testimony concerned anthony perrone. Gaglio was at Condon’s home on the evening perrone delivered the letter. While Condon and the others dealt with the note, Gaglio examined perrone’s identification and license number, making sure to get enough information for the police.19 during cross-examination, reilly insinuated that Condon had provided directions for the trip to hopewell. obviously, he was attempting to set the stage for an argument that Condon was in on the entire caper. Gaglio denied this claim and said they asked various strangers along the way and eventually had to call for additional directions before being met by the state police.20 Gaglio’s version of the trip to hopewell was corroborated by the next witness, max rosenhain, who described the trip without substantial variation. reilly briefly questioned the witness, but to no avail.21 The crowd was beginning to hum with anticipation. it was obvious to all that these witnesses were setting the stage for Jafsie Condon. many were disappointed when Wilentz called alfred J. reich as the next witness because the lateness of the hour meant that the anticipated battle between reilly and Condon would not take place until the following day. reich (pronounced “reach” with a long e)22 began his testimony with the events of march 12, 1932, the night perrone delivered the letter to Condon. reich said he drove Condon to the frankfurter stand near the Jerome avenue subway station. There, Condon found a second note and returned to the car. reich made a u-turn and went back down Jerome avenue toward 233rd street and Woodlawn Cemetery.23 reich stayed in the car as Condon approached the cemetery. after five or ten minutes, Condon approached the cemetery gate and began conversing with someone reich could not see. The first time reich saw the man was when he climbed over the cemetery gate and ran into Van Cortlandt park. Condon gave chase and the two eventually sat on a park bench near a shack and talked.24 Wilentz showed the witness a picture of Van Cortlandt park, and reich promptly pointed to the bench and the shack. The picture was entered into evidence.25 reich testified that Condon spoke with the mysterious man for nearly an hour before returning to the car. reich then drove the doctor home.26 Judge trenchard interrupted the proceedings and announced that the trial would be adjourned until ten o’clock the following morning. on the sixth day of trial, January 9, 1935, al reich returned to the stand. Wilentz started the questioning by asking about the night of april 2, 1932, the night of the ransom exchange. reich said he was at Condon’s home that night along with mrs. Condon, ralph hacker (Condon’s son-in-law), Colonel Breckinridge, and Charles lindbergh.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

/355348t

| 231 |

Before Condon and lindbergh left the home, reich observed the ransom money being packed into the wooden box and saw lindbergh and Condon leave the house with it. he remained at Condon’s home until the two men returned thirty to fortyfive minutes later.27 With his direct examination complete, Wilentz turned the witness over for crossexamination. reilly asked a few accusatory questions, but seemed to focus primarily on why the money was brought from the bank to Condon’s house that evening. reilly’s point was that the note instructing them to go the florist and later to st. raymond’s Cemetery had not yet been received. reilly wanted reich to explain why the money had been brought to Condon’s home before they had received those notes. reich responded that lindbergh, Breckinridge, and Condon were giving the orders, and he was just following them. he summarized his role in the entire affair by saying, “i wasn’t one of the executives in this; i was just a dot on the ‘i,’” a remark that prompted laughter throughout the court and yet another warning from Judge trenchard to the crowd to remain quiet.28 The money was brought to Condon’s house that evening in response to a letter from the kidnapper received on april 1, 1932. in this letter, the kidnapper wrote: “have the money ready by saturday evening. We will inform you where and how to deliver it.”29 since contact was made at dr. Condon’s home the last time the kidnapper wanted a meeting, it only made sense to bring the money there. reilly certainly knew this information. he was throwing out these questions in the hope that reich would guess or say something colossally stupid that he could use. The ploy failed. reich did not know many of the details. he was a person who took orders, and he limited his testimony only to what he actually knew. as reich left the witness stand, the crowd bristled with excitement. The newspapers that morning claimed that Jafsie Condon would be testifying that day. The idea of two strong-willed, bombastic, and long-winded men doing verbal battle would surely be the highlight of the trial. The anticipation had been growing for several days as witness after witness set the stage. Finally, the moment arrived as the seventy-four-year-old educator made his way to the stand. after being sworn, he was offered a glass of water by david Wilentz, either in response to his age, the length of time he would be on the stand, or both. Condon politely responded, “i thank you. i don’t need it yet.”30 as a sign of the battle to come, the first objection came only a few questions into the examination. Condon was asked where he lived and responded, “in the most beautiful borough in the world.” mr. Fisher promptly stood and stated that he felt Flemington was most beautiful.31 ignoring Fisher’s weak play to the jury, Wilentz asked Condon to cite his credentials as a doctor. Condon replied that he had earned a bachelor of arts from the College of the City of new york, a master of arts from Fordham university, and a doctor of pedagogy from new york university. When asked if the title of “doctor”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 232 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

was a nickname or an earned distinction, Condon said, “i have the title, the degree, and the diploma extant.”32 Wilentz tried to move on, but Condon interjected and began setting forth his resume and experience as a teacher. realizing that Condon was not going to continue without satisfying his ego, Wilentz let him finish.33 once Condon finished his soliloquy, Wilentz had the witness recount his involvement with the case, beginning with the night at st. raymond’s Cemetery. Jafsie spoke about being driven to the Bergen florist by Colonel lindbergh and finding the note under a rock. he read the note and followed its instructions by walking down Whittemore avenue toward st. raymond’s Cemetery with money in hand.34 skipping ahead a little, Wilentz asked about the transfer of money, which was the most important part of Condon’s entire testimony: Q: did you meet a man there? a: i did. Q: did you have with you some time or other that night, you and Colonel lindbergh, a box of money? a: The Colonel had the box of money with an extra package beside. Q: all right, sir. did you give some money in a box that night? a: i did. Q: and who did you give that money to? a: John.35

now Wilentz asked the single most important question: “Who is John?” Condon paused for a second, turned his attention directly to the defendant, pointed his finger at him, and said in a direct and dramatic voice with each syllable clearly separated and annunciated, “John is Bruno richard hauptmann.”36 This was the identification the world was waiting for. John Condon, the only man to actually see the kidnapper face to face, had just fingered hauptmann as the culprit. The crowd was buzzing, reporters were scrambling out of the courtroom, and telegraphs from within the courthouse were actively telling the world the lead story for the evening: “Jafsie identifies hauptmann.”37 With this crucial identification out of the way, Wilentz relaxed and had Condon go through all the details of his involvement in the case, pausing only to ask for additional information when needed. Jafsie recounted the letter he sent to the Bronx Home News and the two letters he received in response from the kidnapper. Condon was shown the two letters and envelopes, which he quickly identified.38 Jafsie also described going to rosenhain’s restaurant and eventually to lindbergh’s home in hopewell, where he stayed for the night.39

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

/355348t

| 233 |

Condon discussed the various ads taken in the Bronx Home News and the letters received from the kidnappers in response. eventually, he recounted the evening of march 12, 1932, and his visit to Woodlawn Cemetery. he also described seeing a man waving a handkerchief through the bars of the gate.40 here, Wilentz interjected and asked who the man waving the handkerchief was. Condon replied, “John, as given to me by himself.” “and who is John?” Wilentz asked impatiently. “John is Bruno richard hauptmann.”41 This was an important identification. under new Jersey law at that time, statements not made in the presence of the defendant were practically inadmissible. Consequently, unless the man at Woodlawn Cemetery was identified as hauptmann, the entire conversation with Condon would have been precluded. But, with this detail taken care of, Wilentz had Condon continue with the conversation and events at Woodlawn Cemetery. Condon recalled the watchman showing up unexpectedly and hauptmann climbing the gate and running into Van Cortlandt park. Condon claimed to have run after hauptmann, caught him, and led him to a bench, where they sat and spoke for nearly an hour.42 The conversation testified to by Condon runs contrary to many of his statements, including his initial report to the FBi, which i relied upon. as usual, Condon’s version at trial portrayed himself as the daring but compassionate hero. according to Condon, at the end of their conversation, hauptmann promised to send him the baby’s sleeping suit to prove he was dealing with the actual kidnapper.43 The following Wednesday, Condon received a package with a note and the sleeping suit. Wilentz showed Condon the letter, package, and sleeping suit, all of which he identified.44 Condon testified about the continuing negotiations and the eventual instructions to have the money ready on saturday, april 2, 1932. Jafsie mentioned the second cab driver delivering the note and Colonel lindbergh driving him first to the Bergen florist and then to st. raymond’s Cemetery.45 after recessing for lunch, Condon resumed the stand and continued to describe in vivid detail the events that occurred at st. raymond’s Cemetery. he told the jury about the exchange of the ransom money and the note he was given by the kidnapper.46 Wilentz interrupted here looking for another identification: Q: and the man you handed the money to was John, you say? a: is John. Q: That is the man you are talking about in this conversation? a: That is the man i am talking about on that night. Q: and John is who? a: John is Bruno rudolph—or Bruno richard hauptmann.47

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 234 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

having gotten a third identification, Wilentz had Condon discuss the fruitless search that he and Colonel lindbergh conducted for “Boad nelly” and then give a physical description of John. Condon replied that John was five feet nine-and-ahalf to five feet ten inches tall with “muddy blond hair.” Condon said that John was a “middleweight,” weighing between 158 to 165 pounds.48 With that, Wilentz was finished and relinquished the witness to the defense. ed reilly stood and approached Condon. Finally, the battle was on. For whatever reason, reilly decided to ask Condon about various weight limits in boxing. since Condon had described hauptmann as a “middleweight,” perhaps he wanted to test Condon’s knowledge in this area. it was a mistake. Condon was a big fan of boxing and had no trouble describing the weight limits and even offered the years when the limits had been modified.49 nevertheless, reilly persisted with his boxing questions, asking, “What am i, a heavyweight?” “you a heavyweight? may i look?” Condon replied. Condon stepped down from the stand, examined reilly, and squeezed his arm muscles. “This don’t hurt you, does it?” Condon asked sarcastically. “not a particle,” reilly shot back. returning to his seat, Condon said to a chorus of laughter, “undoubtedly, a heavyweight.” “and i take it you yourself are a heavyweight?” “now?” Condon inquired. “yes,” reilly persisted. “yes.” “so, we start even?” reilly asked. “right—that is physically,” Condon retorted again to uproarious laughter.50 right from the beginning, Condon was proving himself to be at least reilly’s equal in sarcasm. Frankly, in the first mini-exchange, Condon made reilly look bad. reilly changed topics and asked Condon if he had ever taken a book out of the new york public library on signs or symbols. Condon vehemently denied it, insisting that he had never taken any book from that library. reilly demanded a writing sample from Condon, who wrote out his full name and signature.51 presumably, reilly intended to use this sample to prove Condon was a liar. however, he never made reference to it again. reilly asked Condon about a conversation he had with a druggist named donegan. Condon admitted meeting the man. Then reilly accused Condon of telling the druggist that hauptmann was not John and that he would pay $10,000 to find John. Jafsie responded, “i never said any such thing, sir.”52 attorney General Wilentz summarily and improperly announced that he had an unsolicited letter from mr. donegan and offered to read it to the court. reilly

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

/355348t

| 235 |

exploded in anger and demanded a mistrial. Judge trenchard denied the request for a mistrial, but instructed the jury to disregard the mention of the letter. reilly was right to be angry. The prosecution’s mere mention of an “unsolicited letter” from the druggist was obviously intended to convey a message to the jury that the druggist had either denied the conversation or recanted his earlier statement. despite advising the jury to disregard the statement, it is unlikely they did. one cannot unring a bell. as to the exact contents of the letter, it reportedly stated that the druggist denied any such statement made by Condon.53 reilly continued his accusations against Condon. Jafsie denied that he had told a waiter at a restaurant that hauptmann was not John.54 he denied telling anyone that hauptmann was not John. Condon did admit that he never told any member of the press that hauptmann was John. When pressed, Condon gave an explanation that has been fiercely vilified to this day, and reilly pressed him on this quite forcefully: Q: . . . you never once told any newspaper man that this defendant was John, did you? a: Which defendant? Q: This defendant here. a: oh. i never did. i never told or mentioned his name to them or in public, never, note the words Colonel—of affirmation or denial. i made a distinction between “identification” and “declaration of identification.” Q: in other words, i am to understand that [you] split hairs in words? a: no hairs at all. a man’s life is at stake and i want to be honest about it. Q: There was nothing preventing you from telling the press was there, that this was the right man? a: yes, there was; yes, there was. Q: if you wanted to be honest about it, why did you not blazon forth that fact to the world when they asked you? a: Because i didn’t wish to do it and perhaps interfere with the case itself. Q: if you were honest and telling the truth, do you not know that nothing could interfere with the truth, no matter how many times you said it was the man. a: it didn’t. it didn’t. it didn’t interfere because i didn’t say. Q: in Greenwich street, new york police station, you said it was not the man, did you not? a: no, sir. Get all the people that were there. i did not. Q: you never said it was the man? a: i never said it was or was not. Q: Because you know you are not sure! a: Because i made the distinction between declaration and identification. The

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 236 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

identification meant what i knew mentally, the declaration meant what i said to others. There isn’t a man who breathes has ever heard me say that that was the man but one. Q: you were brought there for the purpose of identifying hauptmann, were you not? a: i was, yes, sir. Q: and you didn’t identify him, did you? a: no, sir. Beg pardon, there is the word “identification” again. i take exception to your language. it would be a mistake and when you begin to divide the identification and declaration and denial, you would make it appear as though i were dishonest and i am not. i won’t—is that too severe, Judge? The Court: no. Q: Come on, i can take it. a: That is good. i want you to know, Counselor, that the identification is purely a mental process after the senses have known, after the senses have distinguished, and unless that is taken that way to answer quickly, fast, i don’t know but it might be a kind of trap you were getting me. The declaration is what i tell others. identification is what i know myself.55

unable to get Condon to budge on his “identification” or “declaration of identification” speech, reilly jumped to another topic, asking why the doctor had chosen the “little Bronx Homes News” for his letter to the kidnapper. Condon expressed outrage at the comment, saying, “you mean the Bronx Home News? yes, 150,000 circulation and over is a pretty good paper.”56 ignoring Condon’s protests, reilly continued, “Then why did you pick out a local Bronx Borough paper, with a circulation of 150,000 with all of new york’s six million people to insert your ad?” Condon answered, “Because those papers all led toward one miserable fellow that i thought was innocent. his name was arthur Johnson.”57 (Condon meant henry Johnson.) “did you know red Johnson?” reilly inquired. “no, i did not.”58 reilly pressured Condon on this point and demanded to know why he, as a man of such academic esteem, would seek to protect a sailor on a yacht if he did not know the man. Condon responded with typical bravado. “i’ll tell you why: because i always hated to see an underdog, and always gave him a chance throughout my life, and i had heard that arthur Johnson had nothing to do with it, from many people.”59 When asked what people had told him of Johnson’s innocence, Condon simply referred to a bunch of sailors he knew without giving any names. When asked if he knew that Johnson called Betty Gow at half past eight on the night of the kidnapping, Condon shocked everyone when he said, “i knew that the night of the kidnapping.”60

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

“John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann”

/355348t

| 237 |

reilly pounced on this slip-up instantly. “how did you know it if you were not in contact with him?” “i will tell you how i knew it. i knew it because it was spread around all through that . . .” “on the night of the kidnapping?” reilly interrupted. “now your english again,” Condon protested. “The night of the kidnapping!” reilly shouted, “answer the question. That is what you said, the night of the kidnapping.” “ask your question.” “you said you knew the night of the kidnapping,” reilly persisted. “That occurred the night of the kidnapping,” Condon corrected. “no,” reilly objected, “you said you knew it the night of the kidnapping.” Condon looked genuinely surprised, “did i say that?” “yes, you did,” reilly snapped. “i said that—when you spoke that he, arthur Johnson, had telephoned to Betty Gow on the night of the kidnapping, but i had never seen, i add it again, i had never seen red Johnson, i mean mr. arthur Johnson.” “are you in the habit of calling deck hands ‘mr. arthur Johnson’ with a bow?” reilly interrupted. “i am. That was my father’s teaching. i never heard of a man 21 years of age that shouldn’t be called mr. in the united states. We have no lords or dukes here,” Condon answered.61 reilly had made another mistake. By challenging Condon on his use of english and his manners, he had allowed the witness to change the subject and get away from his prior mistake. in truth, it was really nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Condon meant that he knew the phone call occurred on the night of the kidnapping, not that he was first made aware of it on the night of the kidnapping. trying to regain his momentum, reilly went back to his original point and accused Condon of selecting a small paper like the Bronx Home News, and not the metropolitan daily papers, because he knew the kidnappers were waiting for his letter as part of the conspiracy. “no, sir!” Condon answered defiantly. For the next hour, the battle continued. neither man gave an inch as their egos clashed. Finally, around 4:30 p.m., Judge trenchard ordered the end of the afternoon session. The next morning, Condon returned to the stand for further questioning. The audience, expecting to see more verbal assaults, was surprised when reilly took a more measured tone. instead of making accusations, the defense attorney was asking for details about the two meetings with Cemetery John. it seemed to be reilly’s plan to keep Condon talking in the hope that he would contradict himself. to reilly’s dismay, the witness did not do so—at least not dramatically.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 238 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

For most of the morning session, reilly just kept seeking more details. Then, shortly before the lunch break, reilly began asking about people Condon had spoken to about the case. he asked him if he had ever stated that a woman was involved in the kidnapping or that the baby’s body had been returned to the site where it was found. Condon denied all of these allegations.62 reilly continued to offer various alleged statements Condon had made, and the witness either denied them or claimed he did not remember. Changing subjects, reilly asked, “Were you ever connected with school 35—or rather the school on 35th street near ninth avenue in manhattan?” “i was principal,” Condon answered proudly. Confirming that Condon had been principal from 1899 to 1902 until his transfer, reilly continued, “By whose request were you transferred?” “By my own.” “Weren’t you transferred, not at your request, but at the request of the teachers in your school?” reilly demanded. “no, sir.” “Weren’t you transferred from that school in 1902, not at your request, but by the orders of the department of education because of conduct unbecoming a gentleman arising out of your conduct with a woman teacher?” “Just a minute!” Wilentz shouted in objection. “no, sir!” Condon shouted angrily.63 Both attorneys shouted at one another while Judge trenchard demanded order. he allowed reilly’s question and Condon’s answer to remain part of the record and gaveled for lunch. The accusation leveled by reilly was one of many circulating through the tabloids. as with many of his dramatic allegations and pronouncements, he never offered any proof to substantiate it. after lunch, reilly announced, “We have finished with dr. Condon.”64 Jafsie had been in the witness chair for over five hours, a grueling ordeal for a man of seventyfour years. yet, as Condon stepped down from the witness chair, he seemed almost disappointed. his moment in the sun was over.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 27 |

paper evidence

The performance of Jafsie Condon was followed by relatively brief testimony from henry Breckinridge and myra Condon hacker. Both witnesses confirmed various portions of John Condon’s testimony, and neither was discredited in any way by the defense. Breckinridge confirmed that he had been present in the Condon home almost every evening from the time the old schoolteacher joined the case until the day the body of Charles lindbergh Jr. was found.1 he was there when the package containing the sleeping suit was opened, when the taxi driver delivered a note, and when the ransom was paid.2 additionally, Breckinridge testified that he was the one actually responsible for posting the various newspaper advertisements used to communicate with the kidnapper.3 attorney General Wilentz asked Colonel Breckinridge to identify for the record the letter and envelope sent to him by the kidnapper, as well as the separate note that had been included for Charles lindbergh.4 The witness identified the symbol on the enclosed note meant for lindbergh’s, but noted that the letter addressed to Breckinridge had no such symbol.5 This is somewhat important in that the initial letter mailed to dr. Condon did not contain the symbol, but the enclosed letter for lindbergh did. The kidnapper usually used the “singnature” on letters intended only for Charles lindbergh. on cross-examination, reilly offered limited resistance. Breckinridge, an attorney himself, was not likely to be tricked or fooled. instead of charging ahead with wild accusations, reilly asked seemingly innocuous questions, but with pretty fair results. he got the witness to acknowledge that he had reservations about Condon’s motive for involving himself in the case.6 he further got Breckinridge to admit that nothing was done to identify the second taxi driver or capture the man who received the $50,000 from dr. Condon.7 Breckinridge attempted to explain away these admissions during further questioning by david Wilentz, claiming his focus was on retrieving the child rather than

| 239 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 240 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

capturing the kidnapper. The explanation was not strong, and reilly clearly won the exchange. myra Condon hacker was a very nervous and tense witness. she had been present on the evening when the sleeping suit arrived and on the evening when the second taxi driver delivered the note. in fact, she was the only person other than dr. Condon himself to see the driver.8 she vaguely described him as five feet six or five feet seven and “very dark.”9 reilly began his examination by asking the witness to relax. he explained that he was only going to ask a few questions and urged the young lady to be comfortable.10 Wisely, reilly did not go after this witness too aggressively. her testimony was not very damaging, and her demeanor was quiet and obviously shy. any attempt to bully or intimidate this witness would have been met with immediate scorn. reilly focused his questions on the description of the taxi driver. Though myra could not remember the man’s clothing, she did offer that he was slender, likely in his twenties, with dark hair, a dark complexion, and no mustache.11 reilly showed the woman a photograph and asked if it was the same man. The witness replied, “i do not believe it is the man.” The man in the picture was isidor Fisch.12 after myra finished testifying, attorney General Wilentz called four witnesses to the stand over a period of slightly more than an hour. Cpl. det. William F. horn and sgt. Thomas J. ritchie of the new Jersey state police, lt. James J. Finn of the new york police department, and special agent Thomas h. sisk of the united states department of Justice all testified to witnessing the taking of various samples of Bruno richard hauptmann’s handwriting. over the stringent objections of defense counsel, these samples were entered into evidence.13 also entered into evidence with the consent of the defense were additional handwriting samples from hauptmann, including driver’s license applications, a promissory note, and an insurance card from liberty mutual insurance Company.14 With the entry of the defendant’s handwriting samples, Wilentz was setting the stage for his army of handwriting experts who were scheduled to begin the next morning. however, when court resumed the following morning, Wilentz did not call a handwriting expert. instead, he called Frank J. Wilson, a special agent of the internal revenue service. Wilson told the jury how he arranged for the serial numbers of the ransom money to be recorded. each bill was examined by two men, who noted the serial number, series, denomination, and whether the bill was a gold certificate or Federal reserve note. Wilson identified the original list of ransom bills, and it was entered into evidence.15 The witness testified that circulars with the serial numbers of the ransom bills were distributed to banks throughout the country. he identified one of these circulars, and it was promptly offered as evidence.16 The attorney general handed the witness an envelope containing over $14,000 in cash. Wilson announced that he had previously checked each and every bill against the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Paper Evidence

--

/355348t

| 241 |

ransom list. all of the money was lindbergh ransom money.17 he also examined a bill recovered from loew’s Theater and announced that it was also part of the ransom.18 Wilson stated that he was assigned by the irs to participate in the investigation of the lindbergh kidnapping. specifically, he was assigned to track down the ransom money. in that capacity, Wilson testified that he was unaware of any ransom notes appearing in circulation after the arrest and indictment of Bruno richard hauptmann.19 lloyd Fisher handled the cross-examination, though not well. he was much too long and lacking in focus. he was able to get Wilson to discuss the deposit of $2,980 in gold certificates under the name of J. J. Faulkner. unfortunately, Fisher asked so many pointless questions that the importance of the testimony was largely lost on the jury. The final witness to testify before the handwriting experts was Col. h. norman schwartzkopf, the head of the new Jersey state police. he merely identified additional handwriting samples taken from hauptmann, noting that the spelling and errors were made by hauptmann and not forced by the police.20 With the preliminary witnesses concluded and all of the samples of the defendant’s handwriting in evidence, albert s. osborn was called as the next witness. osborn was a tall man with snow-white hair, a mustache, and thin glasses. he was seventy-four years old and had the appearance of an old college professor. mr. osborn started his testimony by listing his credentials in handwriting analysis. he referenced his own book on the subject and the over thirty years of testimony before courts throughout the world. reilly did not challenge osborn’s qualifications.21 Wilentz had questioned most of the witnesses, but decided to let assistant district attorney lanigan handle this witness. lanigan wasted little time getting osborn to the point by having him announce that it was his expert opinion that all of the ransom letters had been written by Bruno richard hauptmann.22 For the balance of the afternoon, osborn explained the basis of his conclusion in painful detail. he frequently used large charts with letters taken from the ransom notes and the samples of the defendant’s handwriting, showing how they were written similarly. osborn went through each and every ransom letter and handwriting sample, painstakingly demonstrating the similarities. it was long and rather boring testimony. ironically, the testimony was adjourned until monday morning when the witness—not the jury or onlookers—complained of fatigue.23 on saturday, the New York Post ran a story claiming that reilly intended to call a surprise witness named John scanlon, who was supposedly a double for hauptmann. scanlon, a realtor from menlo park, new Jersey, decided to come forward after reading about the testimony of hopewell residents seeing a man driving a green car near the lindbergh property. he intended to testify that he, not hauptmann, was the man they had seen.24 a picture of scanlon wearing a fedora appeared in newspapers throughout the country. Wearing his hat, he did bear some resemblance to hauptmann.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 242 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

like many of the potential defense witnesses, scanlon was investigated by the new Jersey state police. When interviewed by trooper deGaetano, the so-called double changed his story repeatedly and was unsure of the dates and times he was in hopewell. deGaetano reported that scanlon was making his story up as he went along and had a bad memory.25 a subsequent background check revealed that scanlon had been convicted for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.26 his story made brief headlines, but he never testified. assistant district attorney lanigan must have either realized the tediousness of the testimony or received numerous complaints because he was brief and to the point when osborn returned to the stand on monday morning. he asked osborn whether he could determine who wrote the ransom letters. osborn replied, “in my opinion, Bruno richard hauptmann wrote them.” he went on to describe his conclusion as “irresistible, unanswerable, and overwhelming.”27 during cross-examination, osborn stubbornly refused to give an inch. reilly tried throwing around names of previous cases, hoping to insinuate that osborn had previously made egregious mistakes. The ploy failed as osborn easily refuted the claims. reilly tried to challenge some of the specific findings regarding various letters and words, but with no success. as osborn left the stand, people in the courtroom braced for another boring handwriting expert. Wilentz surprised everyone by calling to the stand a young and very attractive woman named hildegard olga alexander. as the young blonde walked to the witness stand wearing a black coat with mink collar and matching mink hat, the entire courtroom woke up. Clearly, Wilentz knew the importance of keeping the jury interested in the case. ms. alexander told the jury that she lived in the Bronx and had known dr. Condon since 1923. in march 1932, she saw dr. Condon in front of the telegraph office in the waiting room of Fordham station. he was having an argument with another person. meanwhile, a third man was standing ten to fifteen feet behind Condon. he appeared to be watching the old doctor very intently. When asked if she knew who this mysterious man was, the witness stated, “i say the man was Bruno richard hauptmann.” she explained that she saw his picture in the newspaper and recognized him.28 This was damaging testimony because it connected hauptmann to Jafsie. reilly was clearly surprised by this unexpected testimony. he tried to poke holes in her story, but failed. at least one author claims that reilly accused the witness of trying to gather publicity for her career, saying, “Who knows. maybe you will land a movie contract.”29 neither this statement nor anything close to it appears in the official transcript. The record reveals that reilly was polite, but ineffective on cross-examination. When the beautiful witness was finished, Wilentz returned to handwriting evidence by calling eldridge stein, an examiner of disputed documents from new york City, to the stand.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Paper Evidence

--

/355348t

| 243 |

realizing that the jury did not want to listen to another lengthy presentation, the prosecution got right to the heart of the matter and asked for stein’s conclusions up front. stein confirmed albert s. osborn’s opinion that hauptmann had written all of the ransom letters.30 only after giving this opinion was stein allowed to offer more details for his reasoning. While the prosecution recognized the jury’s frustration over the lengthy testimony, the defense attorneys, with the exception of reilly, did not. Fisher and rosencrans believed that if they cross-examined every handwriting witness to the point of exhaustion, the jury would ignore the evidence out of sheer boredom. Being an experienced trial attorney, reilly realized this folly and knew the jury would simply hate the defense team for such tactics. however, for reasons unknown, reilly allowed his colleagues to use this poor strategy.31 Fisher droned on, question after question, often drawing heated objections and warnings from Judge trenchard. When he was finally finished, it was after four o’clock. Judge trenchard decided to end the day early, much to the relief of the entire courtroom. The next day, Wilentz called two more handwriting experts: John F. tyrell and herbert J. Walter. Both men were famous in their field. tyrell testified in the loeb and leopold case, which was considered to be the “trial of the century” prior to the lindbergh trial. Walter was involved in the prosecution of al Capone. Both men testified that Bruno richard hauptmann had written all of the ransom letters.32 The cross-examinations of these men by attorneys pope and rosencrans were long and ineffective. mr. pope’s cross-examination lasted over three hours and accomplished little. it was late in the afternoon when tyrell and Walter were finished. Wilentz convinced the court to allow one more witness before recess. morton C. maish took the stand. his testimony was not overly interesting, but the people in the courtroom were grateful that he was not a handwriting expert. maish was the owner and manufacturer of Baby alice Thumb Guards. his company produced the thumb guard found by Betty Gow on the driveway of the lindbergh estate. he told the jury that the guard was made of monel metal, a mixture of copper and nickel. This metal was resistant to corrosion and would not rust, even if exposed to the elements for several months.33 This testimony was offered to explain why the thumb guard found in the driveway was not rusted or changed dramatically by the weather. Wednesday, January 16, 1935, was mercifully the final day for the prosecution’s handwriting experts. Wilentz called four experts to the stand: harry m. Cassidy, Wilmer t. souder, albert d. osborn (son of albert s. osborn), and Clark sellers. all four men testified that hauptmann was the author of the ransom letters.34 pope and rosencrans continued their long and intentionally boring cross-examination style. however, during the questioning of harry Cassidy, lloyd Fisher made

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 244 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

a mistake and paid for it with embarrassment. in an attempt to discredit the witness, Fisher pointed out that Cassidy had not been present when hauptmann was forced to give writing samples and therefore could not be certain if the police ordered the man to intentionally misspell words. not missing a beat, the quick-witted Cassidy responded, “i wasn’t present when Washington crossed the delaware, but i’ve got a pretty good idea he got over to the Jersey side.”35 The crowd burst into laughter. By the end of the court session, the people had finished their handwriting evidence, and the defense was in serious trouble. unable to shake any of the handwriting witnesses, they would have to produce some impressive experts of their own.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 28 |

“he is Conceding the defendant to the electric Chair!”

When the trial resumed Thursday morning, the prosecution turned its attention from handwriting to focus instead upon the discovery of the murdered infant’s body. William allen and orville Wilson described to the jury how they found the remains and contacted the police.1 sgt. andrew Zapolsky of the new york state police then testified. he described going to the area of woods where the body of the child was found partially facedown. he rolled it over to examine the face. referring to a picture of the child in his possession, Zapolsky made a tentative identification of the body as that of Charles lindbergh Jr.2 officer harry Walsh of the Jersey City police department added to the identification. after viewing the body, Walsh went to the lindbergh estate and retrieved samples of the flannel material used to make the baby’s nightshirt. he described to the jury how these matched the remnants of clothing on the corpse.3 he also admitted that he was careless with a stick and poked a hole in the child’s skull.4 Crossexamination offered little, though Walsh embarrassedly admitted not informing the coroner of the hole he inflicted on the skull. it was now time to present Walter swayze and Charles mitchell, the men who performed the autopsy. having offered an identification of the remains, the prosecution next had to prove that the child was murdered. swayze testified that he took the body from its grave in the woods and brought it to the mortuary, where he observed the positive identifications by Charles lindbergh and Betty Gow.5 after assisting dr. mitchell with the autopsy, swayze signed the death certificate and, per the express wishes of Charles lindbergh, cremated the remains.6 reilly offered a brief but effective cross-examination. in just three questions, reilly brought out that swayze was not a physician and wrote the death certificate entirely upon someone else’s—that is, dr. mitchell’s—conclusions. This meant that the death certificate was hearsay. to reilly’s chagrin and over his vigorous objections, Judge

| 245 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 246 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

trenchard allowed the certificate into evidence.7 Though reilly was angry at the decision, Judge trenchard’s ruling was legally correct.8 dr. mitchell was understandably nervous when he took the stand. he had not actually performed the autopsy due to his arthritis. he was very careful to say “we” when describing the autopsy procedures. he never expressly lied, but author Jim Fisher properly notes in his book that mitchell kept “within the letter if not the spirit of the perjury law.”9 attorney General Wilentz asked the doctor whether the remains were recognizable. mitchell replied, “The facial expression was quite good on this child. The facial muscles had not deteriorated, although the body was generally in a bad state of decomposition.” “have you seen pictures of the lindbergh child?” Wilentz asked. “For that matter,” mitchell answered, “we had a picture of the lindbergh child produced at the morgue that evening and i made a comparison, the best i could between the picture and the facial expression of the child, and i was very much impressed with the fact that it was the same child.”10 as for the results of the autopsy, mitchell told the jury that there was no question that the child died from a skull fracture.11 referring to the fracture as “quite extensive,” the doctor testified it was his opinion that the fracture was caused by external violence, and that the child likely died either instantaneously or within moments of the injury.12 he also was certain that the child was still alive when the fatal blow was struck. during the examination of the skull and brain, mitchell found a blood clot on the inside of the skull at the site of the fracture. if the child was already dead when struck, there would have been no such bleeding.13 This was crucial testimony. Wilentz was concerned about a possible legal hole in his case. to obtain a conviction, he had to prove that the crime of murder occurred within the jurisdiction of the court. The body was discovered in mercer County, but the kidnapping took place in hunterdon County. Wilentz intended to use mitchell’s testimony to try to convince the jury that the child would have died within moments of the “external violence,” which, he argued, occurred at the lindbergh estate in hunterdon County. after briefly confirming the doctor’s medical qualifications, reilly wasted no time challenging him. “you made no effort to determine in your autopsy any cause of death from choking, did you?” “We examined very carefully by opening the mouth,” mitchell answered, “putting the finger down the throat, also opening the chest, looking at the various organs that were left—very few of them left—examined the teeth, examined the tongue, tried to make as careful an examination under the conditions that we had to work on as it was possible to do. The odor itself made it impossible for a man to work over this child.” unwilling to back down, reilly continued, “Then your examination of the child’s body was rather perfunctory, was it not?”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“He Is Conceding the Defendant to the Electric Chair!”

| 247 |

“i wouldn’t say so,” the doctor replied, “i think it was a mighty good one myself.”14 pointing out to the doctor that the weather on the night of the kidnapping was extremely cold and wet and that the child was already ill when kidnapped, reilly suggested that the child could have died from exposure to the cold. mitchell conceded that a two-year-old child would eventually die if exposed to the elements. The doctor maintained that the child’s death was due to a violent head injury. Changing tactics, reilly turned to the hole in the child’s skull, asking, “did you not determine the cause of death the first night to be a bullet hole until you found out a policeman had accidentally poked a stick in there?” “i never determined the cause of death as a bullet wound at any time anywhere,” mitchell insisted. he admitted that he had described the wound as having the appearance of a bullet hole. This was only offered as a descriptive statement. reilly tried to insinuate that the child had been shot and that the bullet had gone through the other side. mitchell dismissed this, noting that a bullet large enough to make such a hole would have blasted the other side of the child’s head apart completely.15 reilly had the witness recount the autopsy step by step. The doctor described examining the child’s throat, larynx, and those internal organs that had not been eaten away. he talked of the appearance of the lips, eyes, and face, which had deteriorated, but were still sufficiently recognizable to permit an identification. he also spoke of the dissection of the child’s head, causing many in the courtroom to become uncomfortable. reilly stopped the discussion by asking the witness if he had done a good job with the autopsy. not surprisingly, mitchell replied that he was completely satisfied. This answer did not appease reilly. “now, i want to know whether you photographed the blood clot,” reilly thundered. “We did not. my memory still holds to me just as i saw it on that occasion,” mitchell answered. sensing an opening, reilly pressed the point strongly. “didn’t you think it important enough to preserve the evidence by picture, of what you found, didn’t you?” “i felt my memory was just as good as the picture on that,” the doctor responded. “There had been nobody arrested, had there?” “not to my knowledge.”16 “and did you take into consideration the fact that possibly before a suspect would be arrested, you might die?” “i didn’t give that a thought.” reilly continued, “did you consider the fact that if you did die before an arrest was made, no one could testify to the autopsy from a medical standpoint?” “i don’t know the law to tell you the truth,” mitchell argued. “you fellows have got it around some way before you get through with it.” “Just a moment doctor,” reilly interjected while ignoring the joke. “you want it to appear now that you are ignorant of the law?”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 248 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“i am ignorant of that part of the law,” mitchell insisted. “i really don’t know what would happen if i did die.”17 The witness explained that he just performed autopsies and filed reports. he had no idea what legal effect his death would have on the case. after a few more questions, reilly sat down. he had been unable to move the doctor from his medical conclusions. he did secure admissions usable during closing arguments to attack the doctor’s credibility. The doctor had been careless in not taking pictures of the autopsy and conceded that the procedure was nearly impossible to perform because of the stench. attorney General Wilentz stood as if to ask further questions. instead, he just offered dr. mitchell’s autopsy report into evidence.18 The medical evidence was complete, and Wilentz decided to get more information to the jury about the ransom money. The prosecutor spent the balance of the morning and the first thirty minutes of the afternoon session calling eleven different witnesses to the stand.19 each of the men worked for either J. p. morgan & Company or the Corn exchange Bank trust Company. They explained how the ransom money was collected and recorded before being brought to the bank. This testimony was needed to demonstrate a chain of custody for the ransom money. Wilentz ultimately intended to show the progression of all the money found in hauptmann’s garage from J. p. morgan & Company to dr. Condon to hauptmann himself. tracing the money from Condon to hauptmann had already been done by Jafsie’s testimony. Following the trail of the money from collection through all the bank tellers and agents would require over thirty-five witnesses. Finally, after Wilentz finished with John helmich, the eleventh such witness, the defense agreed to spare the court the remaining twenty-five by stipulating that all the serial numbers of the ransom money could be entered into evidence. They further stipulated to the chain of custody from J. p. morgan & Co. to dr. Condon. obviously, they still hotly contested that Condon gave the money to the defendant. after the stipulation was acknowledged by the court, Wilentz, on his own behalf and probably that of the entire courtroom, said, “We want to acknowledge our appreciation at this time, if your honor please, of the delightful cooperation on the part of the defense.”20 some may criticize hauptmann’s attorney for not forcing the prosecution to call each and every witness and prove every single point. reilly, though, was an experienced litigator. There was little point in challenging the validity of the ransom money when reilly knew full well that his client intended to place the blame for possessing the money on his deceased friend, isidor Fisch. if the jury believed this, the defense would not be hampered by this stipulation and, by graciously agreeing to waive the need for twenty-five more witnesses in open court, reilly hoped to score points with the jury. The prosecution now began the task of linking hauptmann directly to the ransom money by calling John Joseph lyons to the stand. lyons recounted the day of

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“He Is Conceding the Defendant to the Electric Chair!”

| 249 |

september 15, 1934, when he was working at the Warner-Quinlan gas station. he described his encounter with a man driving a dodge sedan. he identified the man as Bruno richard hauptmann.21 The man demanded gasoline and paid with a $10 gold certificate. The manager of the station, Walter lyle, was worried the bill might be counterfeit, so he wrote down the man’s license plate number.22 later, lyons brought the gold certificate to a local bank and exchanged it for two $5 bills. Wilentz showed the witness a $10 gold certificate and lyons quickly identified it as the one he received from hauptmann.23 two bank tellers testified to receiving the gold certificate from lyons, comparing the serial number to the bank’s list of ransom bills, and notifying the authorities upon finding a match. Both men examined and identified the $10 gold certificate.24 having successfully tied hauptmann to the $10 gold certificate, Wilentz called special agent seery of the Federal Bureau of investigation to the stand to start connecting the defendant with the rest of the ransom money. seery told the packed courtroom that he had been ordered to respond to the Corn exchange Bank to examine money allegedly from the lindbergh kidnapping. When he arrived, Corporal horn of the new Jersey state police and lieutenant Finn of the new york police department were already examining a $10 gold certificate. after going to the Warner-Quinlan gas station and speaking with lyons and lyle, the officers checked the license number written on the bill and received the defendant’s name and address from the department of motor Vehicles. hauptmann was arrested the following morning and admitted to seery that he passed the gold certificate at the gas station. he also admitted purchasing some produce with $10 gold notes as well. When seery finished his testimony, special agent sisk started making his way to the witness stand. he was surprised when Wilentz waived him off and called the name of elmira dormer instead. ms. dormer explained that she was the custodian of st. michael’s orphanage, located in hopewell, new Jersey, only a mile or so from the woods where the baby’s remains had been found. The purpose of dormer’s testimony became clear when Wilentz asked if any of the children at the orphanage were missing. The prosecutor was seeking to eliminate any claim by the defense that the body of the baby was one of the orphans rather than Charles lindbergh Jr. dormer replied that all 306 of the children were in the orphanage. none were missing and she offered documents and attendance books to prove it. When Wilentz sought to enter them into evidence, reilly announced to the court, “There is no dispute.” “There is no claim that the child came from the orphanage?” Wilentz asked. Frederick pope and lloyd Fisher started discussing the matter with Wilentz when reilly’s booming voice ended the debate. “i will say now that there has never been a claim but that this was Colonel lindbergh’s child that was found there.”25

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 250 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

lloyd Fisher was upset by reilly’s concession. he stormed out of the room in angry protest, saying aloud, “he is conceding the defendant to the electric chair!” Fisher was standing only a few feet from hauptmann when he made the remark, and the defendant and a few people sitting nearby heard him.26 many authors have over-dramatized this event. according to them, Fisher shouted loudly for the entire courtroom to hear.27 This seems doubtful because the official trial transcript makes no reference at all to Fisher’s statement. Judge trenchard would certainly have reacted to it, having previously issued stern warnings at even the slightest snicker. a disruptive and emotional outburst by one of the attorneys would have no doubt infuriated the judge, yet the transcript does not mention this. in fact, the transcript reveals that reilly kept speaking and asked for a pointer so that he could question the witness about the terrain in the area where the body was found. if Fisher had screamed in open court, it is highly unlikely that reilly would have continued in this manner. This seems to further advance the notion that most people in the courtroom did not even hear Fisher’s remark. The account of dudley shoenfeld is the most accurate. he contends that Fisher became angry at reilly’s statement and muttered aloud before leaving the courtroom. his remark was loud enough for hauptmann and a few people nearby to hear, but not loud enough to be heard by the judge or most of the courtroom.28 The members of the media who did hear the statement recognized a story and overstated the event. a co-counsel accusing the chief defense counsel of conceding his client to a death sentence was news, but doing so in an angry outburst heard by the entire court was even bigger news. Whether it was heard by the entire room or by only a few, Fisher’s remark and his behavior in general were appalling and unprofessional. an experienced trial attorney knows never to let the jury know that something bad has happened to his or her case. no matter how damaging the evidence, a defense counsel will shake it off without emotion or anger. to do otherwise only highlights the evidence for the jury. it is interesting, though, that people have focused on reilly’s concession instead of Fisher’s foolish behavior. For example, anthony scaduto claims that reilly’s statement “destroyed the slimmest chance to save hauptmann’s life.”29 another author, Wayne Jones, actually went one step further, claiming that reilly deliberately made the statement to help the prosecution convict hauptmann.30 Both men praised Fisher though as the best of the defense team and the only one who truly cared about hauptmann. in actuality, reilly’s admission was the correct legal maneuver. Challenging whether the skeletal remains were that of the lindberghs’ baby would have been a foolish endeavor. The body was identified by Charles lindbergh and the nursemaid, Betty Gow. additionally, the police officers responding to the scene made an identification based upon photographs of the child. lastly, the clothing found on the body was not only identified by Betty Gow and anne lindbergh but also matched the material and thread from which Gow made the baby’s clothes.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“He Is Conceding the Defendant to the Electric Chair!”

| 251 |

reilly properly decided that it was better to keep the jury focused on his defense. prolonging the trial to argue that the body was not lindbergh’s baby would only have angered and inflamed the jury. it is startling that no author or published historian has ever criticized the behavior of lloyd Fisher. to even consider making a public statement about hauptmann being condemned to the electric chair is bad enough, but to say it where members of the deciding jury might hear is inexcusable. any jurors who heard that statement would believe that even defense counsel thought their client’s case was hopeless. Fisher’s actions were more reminiscent of a first-year law student than that of an experienced trial attorney. Fisher returned to the courtroom during reilly’s brief questioning of dormer. he spoke quietly with hauptmann, almost as if to reassure him that he was not leaving the defense team. he was still speaking with the defendant when reilly finished questioning the witness. Though it was getting late in the afternoon, Wilentz had two more witnesses, the first of whom was Thomas sisk of the Federal Bureau of investigation. sisk testified to the actual arrest of hauptmann. he told the jury about the $20 gold certificate found in the defendant’s wallet, which was soon determined to be ransom money.31 The witness continued by describing the scene at hauptmann’s apartment while the defendant was seated in his bedroom and the police searched for evidence. sisk reported seeing hauptmann look out the window at his garage several times. suspecting that something might be hidden there, sisk and his fellow officers went to the garage. They pried up two loose floor planks and found freshly disturbed dirt. Grabbing a shovel, the officers dug until they discovered a sealed jar. inside the jar, they found only a few inches of water.32 hauptmann initially denied any knowledge of the jar of water. however, sisk added that the defendant told him the following day that he had kept some of the money in that same jar only three weeks before his arrest. suddenly, hauptmann jumped to his feet and started toward the witness, shouting, “mister, mister, you are lying! you are telling a story!”33 For a split second, the guards near the defendant hesitated, surprised by the sudden outburst of anger from the previously quiet and sedate prisoner. They regained their composure quickly and pushed hauptmann back into his seat. Though he did not fight the guards, hauptmann was still clearly upset, his face flushed with emotion.34 Why did hauptmann pick that particular moment to lash out? sir ludovic Kennedy wrote that hauptmann felt this testimony damaged his explanation that the money became wet when rain leaked into the closet, soaking the shoebox.35 anthony scaduto goes much further. he argues that this moment was a revelation to hauptmann that the police might actually bend the truth to get him convicted. This was more than hauptmann could stand.36 dudley shoenfeld offers a much better explanation. he observed that hauptmann became extremely upset when lloyd Fisher stormed out of the courtroom.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 252 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The defendant’s face flushed, and his respiration increased significantly. This emotion raged inside the man until he finally exploded a few minutes later while sisk was on the stand.37 assuming shoenfeld’s theory to be true, then the behavior of lloyd Fisher becomes even more disconcerting. his inappropriate behavior may not only have tainted the jury to some extent, but also enraged his client. it certainly did not help hauptmann to have the jury see him lose control. it is much easier for a jury to believe that a man who is full of anger and rage, as opposed to a person who is quiet and peaceful, could kill a child. Judge trenchard, obviously angry at this breach of courtroom etiquette, wasted little time scolding the defendant. “one moment,” the judge said sternly, “let me suggest to the defendant that he keep quiet. if he has any observations to make, let him make them quietly through counsel.”38 now that the judge had reestablished order, he urged the prosecutor to continue with his questions. Wilentz asked only a few questions before turning him over to ed reilly. reilly started asking rapid-fire questions about the way the defendant was treated during his arrest. how long was hauptmann left standing on the sidewalk? how long was he kept in the car? how long was he kept at the apartment before being brought to the station? sisk answered patiently, insisting that hauptmann was treated properly during the entire arrest. reilly asked to see the arrest and investigation reports, but sisk admitted he did not have them with him. he could have them as early as the following day. “may i continue my cross-examination of this witness tomorrow?” reilly asked the judge. The judge looked questioningly at david Wilentz, who promptly agreed to the request, so long as he could call one more witness that afternoon. That witness was henry eichin. eichin was a surveyor, engineer, and “artist of maps.”39 at the prosecution’s request, eichin presented a map of the Bronx. using a pointer, the witness showed the jury various locations of importance, e.g., Woodlawn and st. raymond’s cemeteries (the sites where Condon met with John), 2974 decatur avenue (the home of dr. Condon), 1279 east 222nd street (the home of hauptmann), and Gun hill road (the location where Joseph perrone was asked to deliver a note to Condon).40 Wilentz offered the map into evidence and sat down. reilly stood for his crossexamination, but instead asked the judge to adjourn the case for the day. trenchard agreed. it had been an extremely long day. twenty-five witnesses had testified, the most for any day before or after. For hauptmann, it had felt even longer.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

The Prosecution Gains Momentum

| 253 |

| 29 |

The prosecution Gains momentum

The next day, henry eichin returned to the stand for continued cross-examination. reilly carefully had the witness place marks on the map to identify various locations. he asked no further questions. Wilentz decided to bring out new pieces of information on redirect examination. he had the witness tell the jury that the areas around both cemeteries were quiet and residential. he also brought out that hauptmann’s apartment was less than four miles from both. everyone expected agent sisk to be the next witness so reilly could complete his questioning. instead, Wilentz summoned John Wallace to the stand. sisk did not appear again until the following tuesday. reilly made no objection to this, so it can only be presumed that the parties mutually agreed to hold off on calling sisk. Wallace, a sergeant with the new Jersey state police, testified to the arrest of hauptmann. he described the stakeout of the defendant’s apartment the evening before by various undercover officers. he told the jury how hauptmann left his house the following morning in his dodge, only to be followed by a group of unmarked police cars. using the map provided by eichin and a pointer, Wallace traced the route taken by hauptmann until he reached park avenue. There, Wallace continued, was where hauptmann was taken from his car and arrested. The witness recounted in detail the finding of the $20 gold certificate in the suspect’s wallet and the initial search of hauptmann’s home. he also was present when the defendant was taken to the police station, questioned, and ordered to provide writing samples.1 Wallace returned to hauptmann’s home the next morning along with numerous other officers to conduct a more detailed search. in the garage, Wallace found one of the suspect’s wood planes. Wilentz presented the witness with a hand plane and Wallace identified it immediately.2 Wallace was present when police carpenters uncovered two small bundles wrapped in newspaper hidden in the garage wall. The first bundle contained one hundred $10 gold notes and the second contained eighty-three more for a total of | 253 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 254 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

$1,830, all ransom money. over defense objections, each bundle of money and the newspaper it was wrapped in were entered into evidence as joint exhibits.3 he also observed det. edward murphy finding an old shellac can in a secret compartment near the base of a window. inside the can were rags and bundles of money. The total amount found in the can was $11,930, and every bill was part of the ransom. Wilentz had the witness identify the shellac can, as well as every bundle of money with the rags and newspaper wrappings. over mr. pope’s objection, they were allowed into evidence.4 after the money was found, Wallace participated in the questioning of hauptmann. The defendant admitted to having the money, but falsely claimed that there was no more to be found. Though Wallace made reference to the money previously being in a shoebox, he never even mentioned isidor Fisch. obviously, Wilentz wanted hauptmann himself to be the first person to mention mr. Fisch.5 Fisher conducted a somewhat lengthy cross-examination of Wallace. he seemed to focus on two points. First, he tried to get Wallace to admit that the money was found only after hauptmann told them where it was. The witness denied this vehemently.6 second, Fisher tried to bring out that all of the money entered into evidence was being used as part of the pending indictment against hauptmann in new york on the charge of extortion. Why Fisher would have even considered offering this information is unclear. it would not help the defendant if the jury knew he was facing additional criminal charges in another jurisdiction. nonetheless, Judge trenchard refused to allow the question. as he was prone to do, Wilentz decided to change the direction of the evidence. he called ella achenbach, a neighbor of the hauptmanns, as the state’s next witness. mrs. achenbach told the court that she had seen the hauptmanns a day or two after the kidnapping. The witness continued, “anna hauptmann came to my front porch and told me they just came home from a trip.” “mrs. achenbach, you are lying!” a high-pitched voice cried out. anna hauptmann had risen to her feet to shout at the witness. “if your honor please,” Wilentz interjected, “we object to these demonstrations, whether they are staged or otherwise.” “one moment,” Judge trenchard offered. “Who said that?” “mrs. hauptmann,” Wilentz replied. “This is the second time this thing has happened,” trenchard noted. Before the judge could say anything further, lloyd Fisher jumped to his feet, furious that the attorney general was accusing the defense of staging the event. Wilentz would not back down, insisting that his comment should remain in the record. as the two men continued to argue, Judge trenchard called for silence. he was not concerned about whether the attorney general’s statement should be stricken. rather, he looked directly at mrs. hauptmann. “now, madam,” the Judge chided in a firm but polite tone. “don’t you see the impropriety of your interrupting this trial in an outburst of this kind?”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Prosecution Gains Momentum

/355348t

| 255 |

“i am sorry, your honor, but i couldn’t help it,” mrs. hauptmann apologized. Wilentz started to object to mrs. hauptmann speaking on the record before Judge trenchard waived him off, saying to the now embarrassed mrs. hauptmann, “now you see that it was wrong for you to make that outburst, don’t you, mrs. hauptmann?” “yes, i see it,” she croaked. “you see that it was wrong, do you not?” the judge pressed. “yes, sir, your honor,” she answered. “now, will you promise me and these gentlemen here and the jury that you won’t offend in that respect again?” the judge inquired. “i will,” the woman answered quietly.7 in a very polite, but firm way, Judge trenchard regained control of the courtroom and made it clear that he did not want any further outbursts. achenbach continued with her testimony. after anna told her about the trip, richard came over to the porch as well. he was limping and favoring his left leg. anna explained that he had sprained his ankle during the trip.8 This was damaging testimony. The obvious inference was that hauptmann injured his leg when the kidnapper’s ladder broke, causing him to fall. reilly tried very hard to shake the woman’s story. he pressed for details on the date and time of the conversation. he even forced the witness to admit that she never saw hauptmann using a cane or crutch or wearing a bandage. yet, mrs. achenbach continued to insist that she saw mr. hauptmann limping and that anna had told her he had sprained his ankle. The state’s next witness was Walter lyle, the coworker of John lyons at the Warner-Quinlan gas station. he had been unavailable the day before when lyons testified. mr. lyle basically confirmed the prior testimony of John lyons. reilly asked no questions.9 after Walter lyle, the next witness was stanley r. Keith. Keith testified only briefly, telling the court that he had removed the original nails from the kidnapper’s ladder for analysis and replaced them with metal tabs. This testimony was just foundational testimony for the later offering of the kidnapper’s ladder.10 next, Wilentz called two detectives from the new york police department. They corroborated the testimony of John Wallace concerning the discovery of ransom money in hauptmann’s garage.11 They were followed to the stand by two carpenters and a detective from the new york police department: Charles enkler, anselm Cramer, and maurice tobin. They testified to finding an eight-inch piece of wood with five circular holes and a sixth hole, which was much larger and oval shaped. inside the smaller holes were $840 in gold certificates. it was all lindbergh ransom money.12 Wilentz intentionally avoided having the witnesses mention the gun found in the larger hole.13 insp. henry Bruckman was the next witness. he was in charge of the brigade of carpenters who examined the garage and home of Bruno hauptmann. he discussed finding the board in the closet with dr. Condon’s address and phone number written on it. Wilentz produced the board, and Bruckman identified it along with the writing.14

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 256 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Bruckman also told the jury about hauptmann’s reaction when confronted with the board. The inspector announced that hauptmann had confessed the writing was his own.15 his testimony was confirmed by the next witness, Benjamin arac. he was the stenographer present when hauptmann was interrogated by assistant district attorney Foley. so that there would be no doubt, Wilentz had the witness read the actual transcript of the interrogation into the record.16 reilly did not question the witness, but obtained a stipulation from david Wilentz that hauptmann’s attorneys were not present when he was questioned.17 The balance of the afternoon calendar was spent listening to four witnesses who testified about the finances and wealth of the hauptmanns.18 The testimony was drawn out by numerous and lengthy objections from the defense. reilly and company contended that hauptmann’s wealth was relevant only if the prosecution could demonstrate that the wealth specifically came from the ransom. Wilentz and his legal team countered that sudden and unexplained wealth was proof of the receipt of extra money. Judge trenchard allowed the evidence. When the fourth witness was finished, court was adjourned for a much-needed weekend. hauptmann spent his saturday making notes about his personal finances, knowing he would have to show his money came from legitimate sources. When court resumed on monday morning, the first witness was William Frank, an investigator with the united states treasury department. he had conducted an extensive review of hauptmann’s assets and finances. as of april 2, 1932, the day the ransom was paid, the couple had $4,941.40 in total assets. as of september 19, 1934, the day of hauptmann’s arrest, the total assets of the couple, including all expenditures, income, and the ransom money found in the garage, totaled $56,059.65. When one subtracted the assets on april 2, 1932, and the known income received during that time, there was still $49,950.44 in unaccounted assets.19 With the total ransom payment only fifty-six cents more than this amount, it was not difficult for the jury to figure out where this extra money came from. on cross-examination, reilly pointed out that his client’s deals in the stock market frequently dealt with revolving figures instead of actual cash. it was not unusual, the witness admitted, for a person to buy and sell on margin with credit, meaning that a portfolio could represent thousands of dollars while the owner of said portfolio possessed only a small amount of cash. to further this point, reilly dragged the witness through almost every stock market transaction hauptmann ever made. as a result, the witness remained on the stand for the rest of the morning and into the afternoon.20 on redirect examination, Wilentz attacked the heart of reilly’s argument by asking whether hauptmann had profited from his investments. Frank examined his notes and reported that hauptmann had actually lost money. “in what amount did the losses exceed the profits from the period of april 2, 1932, until the date of hauptmann’s arrest in september, 1934?” asked Wilentz.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The Prosecution Gains Momentum

/355348t

| 257 |

after checking his notes, the witness replied, “$5,728.63.”21 obviously, the unaccounted assets had not come from the stock market. in just moments, Wilentz had basically nullified hours of cross-examination. it was a great moment for an attorney in his first criminal trial. Barney Fink was the next witness. he was an employee of new york telephone. he testified that John Condon had changed his telephone number to an unlisted number in 1934.22 This was important because the telephone number found on the board in hauptmann’s closet was Condon’s number in 1932, not 1934. it would therefore seem that the number had been written some time earlier. Knowing that hauptmann might claim that he was employed by majestic apartments, Wilentz called edward morton as his next witness. he offered the original employment records demonstrating that Bruno richard hauptmann started working on march 21, 1934, and finished on april 2, 1936, the day the ransom was paid.23 interestingly, morton testified that his employment records included the period of march 1, 1932, to march 15, 1932.24 during the extradition hearing, howard James Knapp, the assistant treasurer of reliance property management, the company handling the payroll for majestic, testified that there were no records for this time period.25 either the records had since been located, or Knapp had been wrong. it is also possible that majestic apartments maintained separate records that were not available to Knapp. hauptmann’s defense was in serious trouble. david Wilentz had done a masterful job of presenting a full accounting of the defendant’s finances to prevent him from being able to easily explain away his significant recent expenses and entering time records from majestic to attack hauptmann’s alibi before he could even raise it for the jury. Cecille Barr, the ticket taker for loew’s sheridan Theater, was the next witness for the state. she testified that Bruno richard hauptmann came to the theater on november 26, 1933, and bought a forty-cent ticket. he paid with a $5 gold certificate that was folded into eight parts. she remembered hauptmann specifically because his actions and attitude annoyed her.26 This was devastating. if the jury believed this witness, hauptmann’s explanation for having the ransom money was in serious jeopardy. he had claimed repeatedly that Fisch gave him the money in a shoebox before sailing home to Germany. he put the money in a broom closet and never opened it until august 1934. now Cecille Barr testified that hauptmann spent ransom money nearly nine months before he supposedly found it. reilly tried to attack Barr’s memory. Though Cecille admitted that she did not know every customer who came to the theater, she did remember hauptmann. reilly then got rather nasty with the young lady, suggesting that she was testifying in return for a hollywood movie role. Barr denied the allegation, and reilly ceased his questioning.27

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 258 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Barr was followed by William Cody, a teller with the Corn exchange Bank. he stated that he discovered a $5 gold certificate in the november 1933 deposit from loew’s sheridan Theater. after comparing the serial numbers and determining that the bill was part of the lindbergh ransom, he called the police. They responded within the hour, and Cody gave the gold certificate to lieutenant Finn.28 When Cody stepped down from the witness stand, Judge trenchard announced that court would be adjourning for the day. it must have been a relief for the entire defense team because the trial was going poorly for their client. in just one day, the prosecution had shown the defendant with almost $50,000 in unexplained assets, destroyed his alibi, and seriously damaged his explanation for possessing the ransom money. The testimony scheduled for the next two days would be even worse.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

The State Rests

/355348t

| 259 |

| 30 |

The state rests

Though the trial was going exceedingly well for david Wilentz, he still had one significant piece of physical evidence to show the jury—the ladder. This was the strongest evidence of guilt, and the attorney general knew the defense would fight tooth and nail to keep the ladder out of evidence. on tuesday morning, Wilentz recalled lieutenant Bornmann to the stand. The witness again identified the wood chisel found near the kidnapper’s ladder at the scene of the crime. after a rather cursory identification, the chisel was allowed into evidence over the objection of the defense.1 next, Wilentz had Bornmann identify the ladder. he stated that the ladder, with only minor exceptions, was in the same or substantially the same condition as when he found it on the lindbergh estate. Based on this additional testimony, the prosecutor asked for the ladder to be admitted.2 The defense renewed its objection. attorney pope argued that a proper foundation still had not been set forth. a chain of custody would be needed, he argued, to trace the ladder from its initial discovery to its analysis by experts and finally back to police custody. This had not been done. Judge trenchard listened to the legal arguments before rendering his decision. noting lieutenant Bornmann’s statement that the ladder was in substantially the same condition as when found and further noting the testimony of amandus hochmuth that he had seen the ladder in the defendant’s car, the judge allowed the ladder into evidence.3 Bornmann then identified the dowel pin found with the kidnapper’s ladder. Judge trenchard allowed this object into evidence as well.4 With ladder and dowel pin now in evidence, Wilentz decided to change course. previously, attorney reilly had reserved his right to continue cross-examination of special agent Thomas sisk. now seemed as good a time as any to recall him. reilly seemed to jump from topic to topic, peppering the witness with questions. sisk described the finding of the $20 gold certificate in hauptmann’s wallet at the time of arrest. he also confirmed that John Condon had recorded himself | 259 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 260 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

imitating Cemetery John’s voice. The actual record was in Washington and would take a few days to retrieve.5 sisk also confirmed that a plaster cast had been taken of a footprint found on a fresh grave near the area where Condon reported seeing Cemetery John. The cast itself was made by ralph hacker. The reports documenting this were still in sisk’s new york office. reilly announced that he would continue his cross-examination only after these documents were provided to him.6 Wilentz had a few loose ends to clear up before moving to the next portion of his case. he decided to recall two witnesses for some brief clarification. The first of the two was lt. James J. Finn. Finn testified that he responded to the Corn exchange Bank where he received a $5 gold certificate from the teller, William Cody. after confirming that the bill had been part of the lindbergh ransom, Finn showed the bill to Cecile Barr, who promptly told him about the annoying man who gave it to her.7 Based on this testimony, Wilentz successfully entered the bill into evidence. he had been unable to do so during ms. Barr’s testimony because she could not testify that the bill was the same one she had received. The most she could say was that it was a $5 gold certificate that had been folded in the same manner. Finn’s testimony provided the link to conclusively prove the bill was one and the same.8 The second witness to be recalled was elsie Whateley. Wilentz explained to the witness that he had previously neglected to ask some questions about the thumb guard found on the lindbergh estate. Whateley politely responded that, while walking with Betty Gow, they had found the thumb guard about one hundred yards from the gate.9 Wilentz had the witness state that she was in her bedroom around ten o’clock on the night of the kidnapping. he also had her identify a few pictures of items found in the nursery on the night of the kidnapping before turning the witness over for cross-examination.10 reilly asked her about her prior testimony and the finding of the thumb guard. Though the tone of his voice suggested strongly that he did not believe the witness, Whateley stuck to her story.11 Wilentz decided to call two supposed eyewitnesses to the stand, millard Whited and Charles B. rossiter. neither was overly impressive. Whited repeated his testimony from the extradition hearing. on at least two occasions in February 1932, he saw a suspicious man prowling near the lindbergh estate. two years later, after seeing hauptmann’s picture in the newspapers, he recognized him as that man. lloyd Fisher conducted an aggressive cross-examination. he asked Whited if he had accepted any money to pose for pictures. When Wilentz objected, Fisher insisted that he had the right to show that the primary interest of the witness was to seek fame, fortune, and publicity, rather than provide accurate testimony. unfortunately, and frankly incorrectly, Judge trenchard sustained the objection.12

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The State Rests

--

/355348t

| 261 |

The balance of Fisher’s questioning produced little, though he was able to get the witness to admit that he initially thought the police were after him concerning a robbery, as opposed to asking questions about the kidnapping. he also brought out that the witness had identified a different police officer in his new york testimony as the one to whom he gave his initial report. Whited acknowledged being shown pictures of hauptmann prior to identifying him. These admissions certainly could not have made a good impression on the jury. Whited was followed by Charles B. rossiter, a traveling salesman. rossiter testified that he was driving on route 31 near princeton on the saturday before the kidnapping when he saw a man fixing a flat tire on his car. rossiter offered to help, but the man refused. about five to eight minutes later, the man finished his work and drove away. two years later, when hauptmann was arrested and his picture published in all the newspapers, rossiter recognized him as the man he had seen repairing his tire.13 ed reilly did an excellent job questioning this witness. The witness admitted previously mistaking friends for strangers and could not remember details about any of the officers he had met. The witness insisted that his memory of hauptmann was clear and correct, though reilly’s skillful questioning must have left any reasonable onlooker with considerable doubt.14 hauptmann’s landlord, max rauch, was the state’s next witness. he testified that he examined the attic above the defendant’s apartment approximately two weeks after hauptmann was arrested. he noticed that a section of board around eight or nine feet was missing. it had been there, the witness insisted, when the place was rented. rauch also identified a picture of the attic that showed the missing board.15 The final four witnesses of the day provided testimony showing that a shipment of wood with particular markings from a defective planing knife had been sent from the dorn mill in south Carolina to halligan & mcClelland in new york City and then to the national lumber & millwork Company in the Bronx. This testimony was merely a foundation for the eventual testimony of arthur Koehler, the wood expert.16 as an added bonus, the third of these witnesses, david hirsch, the part owner of the national lumber & millwork Company, testified that he knew the defendant. hauptmann had worked for him previously in 1931 and 1932. even more important, hauptmann frequently purchased lumber from him. his final purchase, prior to the date of the kidnapping, was on december 29, 1931. he even had business records to prove it.17 The next morning, david Wilentz recalled Frank Kelly. When Kelly testified back on January 8, reilly had reserved his right to continue questioning him. now he would have his chance. reilly asked the witness numerous questions about the methods used to obtain fingerprints. after having the witness demonstrate how a fingerprint was retrieved, he asked about the examination of the nursery and ransom note on the night of the crime. Kelly contradicted reilly’s contention that fingerprints might have been wiped off the nursery window by noting that he had found smudges and marks, but

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 262 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

no prints of any value.18 he informed the court that he had also found hand marks on the crib, but they were insufficient to properly analyze.19 The remainder of reilly’s questions dealt with the use of silver nitrate in detecting fingerprints. This was the method used by dr. hudson. The intent of these questions was to try to show that Kelly had an inferior knowledge of the subject. it did not work. Kelly answered the questions quite easily, and reilly concluded his examination. reilly’s cross-examination did not help hauptmann. however, it is extremely helpful to historians and researchers of this case. many allege that Kelly found absolutely nothing on the nursery window, windowsill, or crib.20 This false claim is frequently used to argue that someone must have wiped the nursery clean before Kelly did his investigation. two authors even accused Charles lindbergh himself of doing this.21 The testimony of Frank Kelly puts these allegations and claims to rest once and for all. smudges and marks were discovered in various parts of the nursery, but they were not sufficiently intact to be usable. The nursery was not wiped clean of fingerprints by lindbergh or anyone else. The second witness that morning was John lyons. his testimony was simply a waste of time. he testified that he was one of the officers who searched hauptmann’s home after his arrest. in hauptmann’s desk, lyons found writing paper. There was nothing special about it, and there was no evidence that linked the paper to the crime. it was entered into evidence anyway and never referred to again.22 The state’s third witness that day was lewis Bornmann. he testified that he was searching hauptmann’s attic for money on september 26, 1934. Though he found no money, he noticed that one of the floorboards was shorter than the others. a closer look revealed that a portion of the board had been removed. in one of the crossbeams, there were empty nail holes and a pile of sawdust. Bornmann ordered two police carpenters assigned to the house to remove and save the rest of the board and its nails. Thirteen days later, Bornmann returned to the attic with arthur Koehler. They brought the board and nails with them, as well as rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder. Bornmann watched as Koehler placed the ladder rail over the crossbeams. he told the jury how the four extra nail holes in the rail lined up perfectly with the nail holes in the attic joists and how Koehler placed the nails, which slid in easily and completely, into the holes. The incriminating attic board was entered into evidence.23 Bornmann’s testimony was corroborated by the subsequent testimonies of Charles F. W. enkler and anselm Cramer, the two police carpenters. now david Wilentz called his final witness, arthur Koehler. The witness began by reciting his qualifications and expertise in the area of wood identification. This prompted an objection from mr. pope, who claimed “[t]here is no such animal known among men as an expert on wood.”24 The judge overruled the objection, finding arthur Koehler qualified as an expert. Wilentz handed rail sixteen and the attic board to the witness and asked, “i ask you, what, if any, is the relationship between that rail and the exhibit just referred to?”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The State Rests

--

/355348t

| 263 |

Koehler replied, “as a result of careful study of the two, i have come to the conclusion that those two pieces at one time were one piece. They have been cut in two.”25 Wilentz asked the witness to justify his conclusion. Koehler reminded the jury how he placed the ladder rail on the empty crossbeams in hauptmann’s attic and how he gently pressed the nails in with his thumb, revealing a perfect fit with the nail holes flush with the face of the board. after several interrupting objections, Koehler finally concluded, “There are four nail holes a certain distance apart and a certain direction from each other and, in my opinion, it wouldn’t be possible that there would have been another board somewhere with cut nail holes in them, spaced exactly like these nail holes are in the joists, the same distance apart, the same direction from each other.”26 Wilentz asked if the similar nail placement was the only basis of the conclusion. Koehler pointed out that the grain of the wood from rail sixteen and the attic board matched perfectly. in support of this, Koehler offered a lengthy commentary about the growth rings of wood and how no two trees have the exact same pattern. By comparing the two, it was not difficult for him to determine that rail sixteen and the attic board came from the same original board.27 This was incredibly damning testimony. Koehler had just convincingly told the jury that one of the side rails of the ladder had come from a board in hauptmann’s attic. Who else but hauptmann could have made this side rail? “i notice,” Wilentz asked, “that the ladder rail is not as wide as the attic boards. Will you explain that, if you can tell from an examination of the two?” “in examining this ladder rail,” Koehler responded, “i noticed that both edges were planed with a hand plane. The plane was not in very good condition and left little ridges, and also these ridges were wobbly over the end, showing that both ends were planed with a hand plane.” Wilentz handed his witness the plane taken from hauptmann’s garage, which was previously entered into evidence as exhibit s-177, asking, “Can you tell whether or not s-177 is the plane that was used in planing the ladder rail?” “it was,” Koehler answered. “is there any question in your mind?” Wilentz continued. “not the least,” the witness replied. “now, let me ask you this,” Wilentz offered without missing a beat, “why do you say it? Will you explain it?” “Because, on the ladder rail,” Koehler began, as the jury listened in stony silence, “there are a number of ridges of different size and when i plane a piece of wood with that plane, it makes similar ridges of the same size and same spacing apart as is found on the ladder rail.” “Would any other plane in your opinion make those ridges and marks?” Wilentz asked. “no,” Koehler added, “that would be out of the question.”28

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 264 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

to further make his point, Wilentz instructed the witness to step down from the witness chair and give a demonstration for the jury. First, he made an impression of a fresh piece of wood by putting a piece of paper over it and rubbing it with a pencil. Then, using the judge’s bench, he placed the wood in a vice and planed it. Then he took a piece of paper, placed it on top of the freshly planed wood, and rubbed an impression of the plane marks he had just made. lastly, he put a piece of paper over one of the rungs of the ladder and made a third rubbing. Koehler presented all three papers to the jury. The rubbing of the fresh plane marks matched the ridges on the ladder rung precisely. This effective demonstration proved that hauptmann’s hand plane had been used on the ladder rung.29 Wilentz next brought forth the wood chisel found at the scene of the kidnapping. he asked the witness if he could determine if this same chisel had been used in the ladder’s construction. Koehler answered that while he did determine that a wood chisel of the exact same size (¾ inch) had been used, it was not possible to make an exact match.30 Wilentz gave the witness the toolbox found in hauptmann’s garage and asked Koehler to examine it. he looked through it carefully and announced that while the set contained several different sized wood chisels, there was no ¾-inch chisel.31 The implication, though quite obviously circumstantial, was that the missing chisel was the one found at the scene of the crime. The prosecutor shifted the topic to Koehler’s examination and analysis of the ladder. Koehler explained to the jury that he had first examined the ladder in 1932 and had been using his scientific skill in an attempt to determine the origin of the lumber used in its construction. “prior to september 1934 and before the day that hauptmann was arrested,” Wilentz asked, “had you ascertained where some of the lumber came from?” “yes,” the witness replied. “What date was it?” the prosecutor continued. “november 29, 1933.” “Where did it come from?” Wilentz prompted. “From the national lumber & millwork Company in the Bronx,” Koehler responded.32 Koehler spent the next thirty to forty minutes explaining about the marks made by mill planers and the distinctive indentation in the lumber of the ladder caused by an imperfection in one of the planer knives. he told the fascinated jury that he had been able to affirmatively determine that the wood found at the national lumber & millwork Company matched these marks and indentations identically.33 When he finished, david Wilentz, noting that it was nearly four-thirty in the afternoon and that he still had a few points to make on direct examination, requested an adjournment to the following morning. Judge trenchard willingly agreed.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The State Rests

--

/355348t

| 265 |

at 10:27 a.m. on Thursday morning, court resumed, and arthur Koehler made his way back to the witness chair. Wilentz handed the witness a photograph that was quickly identified as a picture of hauptmann’s car. “now, mr. Koehler,” Wilentz began, “have you seen this automobile, the automobile shown by this picture?” “yes.” after confirming the license plate number of the car, Wilentz asked the witness if he had attempted to put the kidnapper’s ladder into this car. Koehler reported that he had indeed done so. The ladder, when disassembled, fit in the front or back seat with several inches to spare. moreover, when placed in the back seat, it could be seen from the outside.34 Then, to the surprise of many in the courtroom, the prosecutor announced he was finished with the witness. Clearly, he could have completed his questioning the previous afternoon. however, obtaining the adjournment was an excellent trial tactic. if he had finished the direct examination the prior afternoon, reilly would have no doubt sought an adjournment as well. By getting court to recess before he was finished, the first thing the jury heard Thursday morning was testimony favorable to the prosecution, as opposed to cross-examination. The cross-examination of arthur Koehler was done by Frederick pope. Though he tried attacking the testimony from multiple angles, he got absolutely nowhere. in fact, pope made a significant mistake by asking the witness if the ladder would have been able to hold a man weighing 175 to 180 pounds. Koehler immediately answered, “yes, i think it would.”35 pope’s question was a grievous mistake because it gave Koehler the opportunity to inform the jury that a person of hauptmann’s weight could have used the ladder. This was not something offered during his direct testimony, and Wilentz made sure to have the witness repeat it during redirect. he also asked Koehler about the spacing of the ladder rungs. “now, with reference to the distance between the rungs of the ladder, a little fellow like me would have a hard time climbing a ladder with rungs so wide, wouldn’t he?” Wilentz queried.36 “yes.” “a man about 5 foot 9 or 10 inches would have an easier time, wouldn’t he?” Wilentz continued. “somewhat easier, yes.”37 in all, arthur Koehler’s testimony was completely devastating to hauptmann. he not only told the jury that the ladder was specifically designed for someone of the defendant’s height and weight, but also demonstrated to the jury that hauptmann’s hand plane was used on the kidnapper’s ladder. additionally, some of the wood used to make the ladder was traced to a company where the defendant had once worked

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 266 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

and frequently purchased lumber. lastly, and most incriminatingly, Koehler offered his irrefutable opinion that rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder had been made from a portion of a board that had been in hauptmann’s own attic. While the impact of Koehler’s testimony was still being absorbed, Wilentz rose from his chair and quietly announced, “The state rests.”38

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 31 |

hauptmann takes the stand

When court resumed later that afternoon, the defense began its case. They started by making a motion for dismissal upon the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case.1 This is a standard motion that is always made at the conclusion of the prosecution. it is referred to in legal parlance as a motion for a directed verdict. The defense basically asks the judge to decide that insufficient evidence was presented to the jury to legally support the charge. if granted, the trial is over and the defendant declared not guilty. in most cases, the trial court judge either denies the motion or reserves judgment, so as to allow the jury to render a verdict. Thus, if the evidence is truly weak, the jury may very well find the accused not guilty and alleviate the need for the judge to rule and face public wrath for an early dismissal. mr. rosencrans presented his arguments for dismissal to the court with attorney General Wilentz offering rebuttal. Judge trenchard chose not to reserve decision and said simply, “The motion for direction of acquittal will be denied.”2 Before calling any witnesses, lloyd Fisher offered the opening statement for the defense. in most trials, the opening statements for both sides are made at the very beginning. however, in new Jersey in 1935, the procedure was slightly different. The opening statement of the defense came at the end of the state’s case and just before presentation of witnesses by the defense. Fisher walked toward the jury box and addressed them in a calm but casual voice. “if it please your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” he began, “i appreciate how truly keen a responsibility is mine. i shall humbly and in a language as simple as i can command give you briefly the facts and the circumstances upon which we rely to gain for the defendant, Bruno richard hauptmann, an acquittal at your hands.”3 Fisher told the jury that the defense would offer evidence proving an alibi for the defendant on each and every day of importance in the case. The defense would prove that hauptmann was not in new Jersey on march 1, 1932, nor was he in st. raymond’s Cemetery on april 2, 1932, the date the ransom was paid. additionally, the defense

| 267 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 268 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

.

intended to prove that hauptmann was not the man Cecile Barr saw passing a $5 gold certificate. after discussing hauptmann’s alibi, Fisher then told the jury that the defense could not call as many expert witnesses as the prosecution because the defendant had no money. “We have no money,” Fisher continued, “to go down to los angeles and bring Clark sellers here.” “Just a minute,” objected david Wilentz, “We except to this, of course. We expect counsel to prove what he says in this regard.” “of course,” Judge trenchard interrupted, “The very purpose of an opening is to state the facts which counsel expects to prove.” in an unusual move, the judge had made it clear that he would allow the defendant to make his claims of poverty, as long as he backed it up with evidence. Wilentz, clearly dissatisfied with the judge’s ruling, added, “This is the reason they haven’t got more handwriting experts, as i understand, is because of a lack of funds—we expect them to prove that.”4 Fisher continued to refer to hauptmann’s lack of money. he alleged that whatever money his client did have was tied up by the state of new Jersey. not only would the defense prove hauptmann to be penniless, but also would show that the defendant’s finances prior to arrest were not nearly as extravagant as the prosecution claimed. Witnesses would be called, Fisher promised, to clarify hauptmann’s finances. Changing topics, Fisher lashed into the state’s supposed eyewitnesses. The defense would show that amandus hochmuth was “unreliable” and “crazy on the subject of people chasing him.” millard Whited would be shown to have a poor reputation for honesty and Charles rossiter a liar.5 Fisher offered negative comments about hildegard alexander and dr. Condon before turning his attention to the police. “We believe we will be able to show you that no case in all of history was as badly handled or as badly mangled as this case,” Fisher offered. as two examples of this so-called bungling, Fisher mentioned the inability to obtain fingerprints and alleged that the ladder was not in sufficient condition to be properly identified.6 Fisher concluded his remarks and ed reilly rose from his chair, bellowing, “Bruno richard hauptmann, take the stand.”7 hauptmann walked quickly to the stand, seemingly anxious to tell his side of the story. after being sworn in, hauptmann sat down and stared at his attorney. reilly knew that he needed to humanize his client. The jury had already heard seventeen days of damning testimony against him. now reilly would show them that his client was not a monster, but a man with a wife and child. he started by leading the witness through his birth in Germany and subsequent education both in regular school and a trade school. hauptmann described going to work at the age of fourteen as a carpenter’s helper and being drafted into the German army at seventeen. he served for nearly two years before he was “slightly wounded”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Hauptmann Takes the Stand

--

/355348t

| 269 |

and “gassed.” When he returned home after his military service, he was unable to find work. Germany was economically destroyed, and jobs were extremely scarce.8 “now, during the period of reconstruction in Germany, about 1919 and 1920,” reilly asked, “you were convicted of some offense there, is that correct?” “i was,” the witness answered. reilly did not ask hauptmann what crime he had committed. instead, reilly had the witness confirm that he had been sentenced to jail, but was paroled in 1923.9 no mention was made of the defendant’s escape from prison or any of the other crimes for which he was charged and, in some cases, convicted. The questioning jumped ahead to hauptmann’s three attempts to enter the united states. Though reilly brought out that his client had been caught twice before successfully entering as an illegal immigrant, he failed to mention that hauptmann was still a wanted man in Germany.10 in response to further questions, hauptmann described finding employment initially as a dishwasher, but later as a mechanic and eventually as a carpenter. Within two years, he met anna schoeffler, the woman who would be his wife.11 he had just finished talking about his marriage in 1925 when reilly interrupted his testimony. he had two witnesses from new york, and he wanted to suspend his client’s testimony to accommodate them. since there was no objection from mr. Wilentz, the judge permitted the request. hauptmann walked back to his chair at the defense table as Christian Fredericksen was called to the stand. he was a small man and appeared extremely nervous. reilly must have noticed this because he instructed the witness to relax and be comfortable.12 Christian testified that he and his wife, Katy, owned a bakery and lunchroom at 3815 dyre avenue in the Bronx. in 1932, one of his employees was anna hauptmann, who worked as a waitress and counter girl.13 Fredericksen noted that his wife frequently worked evenings, but usually took tuesdays and Fridays off. on those nights, anna would stay late, and her husband would almost always pick her up at the end of the shift. he also made a habit of eating his dinner at the establishment while waiting for anna to finish.14 reilly now framed his primary question to the witness, asking, “now, is it to the best of your recollection, mr. Fredericksen, that tuesday, march the 1st, 1932, being a night that anna hauptmann was in the habit of staying late, do you say to the best of your recollection that Bruno richard hauptmann, her husband, called for her that night?” “Just a minute,” Wilentz interrupted, “if your honor please, i object to the question as being offensively leading, because he didn’t say that.” From a legal standpoint, Wilentz was correct. reilly was leading the witness, which is not permitted on direct examination. regardless, Judge trenchard overruled the objection and allowed the witness to answer.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 270 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Fredericksen answered, “my best recollection is that Bruno usually called for her—he must have been there that night too—but i can’t swear to it.”15 Wilentz had little difficulty cross-examining the witness when reilly was through. he continually hammered home the point that the witness could not be certain that hauptmann had been in the bakery that evening. The most he could say was that it was his usual habit.16 The next witness for the defense was Katy Fredericksen. she confirmed her husband’s testimony about the bakery and anna’s employment. she also verified that tuesday was her night off, and that anna usually covered for her. unfortunately for the defense, she had no knowledge whether Bruno picked up anna on the evening of march 1, 1932. Wilentz made sure to highlight this fact when he questioned her.17 When the Fredericksens were finished testifying, Bruno hauptmann resumed the stand. he again spoke of marrying his wife and described their life together. he referred to their trip to California and his wife’s visit to europe. he also went through various carpentry jobs he held over the years.18 reilly turned the conversation to hauptmann’s employment with majestic. Bruno explained that he obtained the job through an employment agency on saturday, February 27, 1932. The following monday, February 29, hauptmann sharpened his work tools and brought them to the carpenter shop at majestic apartments in anticipation of reporting to work the next morning.19 on the morning of march 1, 1932, hauptmann arrived at majestic around 8:00 a.m. and reported to his supervisor. he was told that there was no work for him until march 15. hauptmann did work, however, from march 15, 1932, to april 2, 1932. asked to explain why he left the job, he claimed that he had been paid only $80 instead of the $100 promised to him. This claim seems strange in that hauptmann did not receive his paycheck until april 15, nearly two weeks after he quit his job.20 reilly then focused on the night of april 2, 1932, the night the ransom was paid at st. raymond’s Cemetery. hauptmann insisted that he was home that evening with his wife and friend, hans Kloppenburg. on saturday evenings, he would play the mandolin while Kloppenburg played the guitar. They would play and sing German songs throughout the evening, usually finishing between eleven and twelve o’clock.21 “now, on april 2, 1932, after you came home from work in the neighborhood of six o’clock, did you ever leave your home that night?” reilly asked. “no, sir,” hauptmann replied. “you were in the house all the time?” reilly quizzed. “all the time,” hauptmann confirmed.22 at this point, Judge trenchard announced that the afternoon session was complete. hauptmann was escorted from the witness stand by the guard, who had been stationed behind him. The next morning, hauptmann returned to the witness chair. reilly started with a completely new line of questioning, choosing to focus on hauptmann’s finances.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Hauptmann Takes the Stand

--

/355348t

| 271 |

The witness told the jury about his various accounts and investments in the stock market. he spoke of his business dealings with isidor Fisch and the money they made trading furs.23 Changing topics rather suddenly, reilly asked about the last time hauptmann saw isidor Fisch. The witness recounted a visit by Fisch the night before he sailed. Before leaving, Fisch left him with two suitcases and a shoebox for safekeeping. The suitcases contained seal skins, and Fisch told him that the small box contained papers. he put the suitcases in the garage, but stored the shoebox in the kitchen closet.24 hauptmann recounted the story he had given to the police about finding the money after water leaked into the closet. he told the jury how he dried the money in the garage and counted it only after it was dry. This was the money, hauptmann explained, that he had been caught spending and the same money the police found in his garage.25 reilly again changed topics and jumped to the heart of the case. “hauptmann,” reilly barked, “were you ever in hopewell in your life?” “i never was,” hauptmann answered. “on the night of march 1, 1932, were you on the grounds of Colonel lindbergh at hopewell, new Jersey?” reilly continued. “i was not,” the witness insisted. “on the night of march 1, 1932, did you enter the nursery of Colonel lindbergh—” reilly started. hauptmann did not wait for the question to finish before interrupting loudly, “i did not.” reilly continued his original question: “ . . . and take from that nursery Charles lindbergh, Jr.?” “i did not,” hauptmann replied. “on the night of march 1, 1932,” reilly persisted, “did you leave on the window seat of Colonel lindbergh’s nursery a note?” “Well, i wasn’t there at all,” hauptmann answered. “you never saw the lindbergh baby in your life, did you?” reilly prompted. “never saw it.” reilly then handed hauptmann the ransom note found in the nursery. he denied writing it or leaving it in the nursery.26 moving on, reilly asked the witness to again discuss his movements on the day of the kidnapping. hauptmann replied that he awoke around 6:00 a.m. and took his wife to the bakery. he returned home, put the car in the garage, and caught the White plains avenue subway to majestic apartments. once at majestic, he was told that no work would be available for two weeks, so he went to the radio City music hall construction site and a few other employment agencies, looking for work. he returned home around five o’clock and stayed there until it was time to pick up his wife at the bakery. he arrived at the bakery around 7:00 p.m. and ate his supper there while waiting for anna. he stayed there until

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 272 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

9:00 p.m. with the exception of a brief period when he walked the Fredericksens’ dog. at 9:00 p.m., he brought anna home, and the two stayed at the house for the remainder of the evening.27 reilly handed hauptmann the various letters sent by the kidnapper and the package that contained the baby’s sleeping suit. The witness denied writing the letters and claimed to have never seen them outside of court.28 reilly handed the witness a picture of Woodlawn Cemetery. hauptmann claimed that he was not familiar with the cemetery at all. he denied ever being there and further denied that he met with John Condon at this cemetery on march 12, 1932. after being given a picture of the shack in Van Cortlandt park near where Condon and Cemetery John sat and spoke for almost an hour, he denied ever being there or ever meeting dr. Condon there.29 reilly had all three sections of the ladder placed separately against the wall to the right of the jury and to hauptmann’s right rear. looking back to the witness, reilly asked, “did you build that ladder?” hauptmann sarcastically replied, “i am a carpenter,” causing an uproar of laughter in the courtroom. Though the answer was amusing, reilly knew it did not directly answer his question, so he repeated, “did you build that ladder?” hauptmann immediately answered, “Certainly not.”30 reilly asked hauptmann to step down from the stand and examine the construction of the ladder. after doing so, the witness announced, “looks like a music instrument.” returning to the witness chair, hauptmann denied using the ladder or taking wood from his attic to construct it.31 reilly asked hauptmann if he was familiar with st. raymond’s Cemetery. hauptmann knew where the cemetery was and had been near it previously. he vehemently denied being there on april 2, 1932, or ever meeting there with dr. Condon.32 turning now to the accusations of Cecile Barr, the ticket taker for loew’s sheridan Theater, reilly asked hauptmann to account for his whereabouts on the night of november 26, 1933. hauptmann noted that november 26 was his birthday. That particular night, there was a small party for him at his house. he was there for most of the evening and denied ever going to loew’s sheridan Theater or ever even being in Greenwich Village.33 With all of the necessary denials out of the way, reilly returned to the subject of hauptmann’s finances. he walked him slowly through each and every account detailing numerous transactions from 1932 until the date of hauptmann’s arrest. The testimony went through hauptmann’s finances in excruciating detail. Though the defendant’s accounts reached amounts of $12,000 or more, there was nothing coming close to $50,000 as alleged by the investigator with the united states treasury department.34 When the testimony about hauptmann’s finances was complete, reilly surprised everyone in the courtroom by asking, “now, when you were taken to the new york City police station, were you beaten by the police?”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Hauptmann Takes the Stand

--

/355348t

| 273 |

Wilentz flew out of his chair in objection as hauptmann shouted, “i was.”35 Wilentz argued to the judge that since there was no confession by the defendant, no allegation could be made of coercion. Consequently, though any beating would have been wrong, it would not be relevant to the issues of guilt or innocence. reilly countered that the handwriting samples taken from hauptmann had been coerced, and the beatings were therefore relevant. Judge trenchard decided to allow reilly to question the witness about his treatment by the police, but only after a proper foundation was presented. eventually, after several unsuccessful attempts, reilly was able to get hauptmann to tell the jury about the beating he received from the police in the new york station. he also described the procedure by which handwriting samples were taken. hauptmann claimed to have been knocked in the ribs when he refused to write and insisted that the police forced him to make certain spelling errors.36 “how do you spell ‘not’?” reilly asked. “n-o-t.” “did they ask you to spell it n-o-t-e?” reilly prompted. “i remember very well they put an ‘e’ on it,” the witness offered. “how do you spell ‘signature’?” “s-i-G-n-u-t-u-r-e,” hauptmann replied incorrectly. “did they tell you to spell it s-i-n-g-?” “They did,” hauptmann interrupted. “n-a-t-u-r-e?” reilly finished. “They did.” “singnature?” reilly asked again. “They did,” hauptmann confirmed. “so when they were dictating the spelling, that was not your own free will in spelling, was it?” reilly concluded. “it was not.”37 This was false testimony from hauptmann. While it is certainly possible the police forced him to make spelling errors in his handwriting sample, they never forced him to spell “signature” incorrectly. a review of all of the handwriting samples taken from hauptmann reveal that the word “signature” or “singnature” do not appear in any of them.38 Wilentz would eventually point out this inconsistency in his closing argument. having finished direct examination, reilly returned to the defense table. hauptmann sat quietly, seemingly confident as Wilentz approached him. to everyone’s surprise, it was hauptmann who spoke first, asking, “mr. General, may i go back to my financial, on my financial transactions?” Wilentz allowed hauptmann to continue and he explained that everything he had discussed about his finances was based on his memory because there were no written receipts or notes. Wilentz told the witness that he understood, but would address that point later.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 274 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“mr. defendant,” Wilentz challenged, “you came into this country, when you came here, illegally, didn’t you?” hauptmann admitted, “yes, sir.” “you have had an opportunity in this court today, and you still have an opportunity this minute to tell the whole truth. have you told the truth?” Wilentz demanded. “i told the truth already,” hauptmann insisted. “all right. so that you stand now on the story that you have given today?” “i do.” “you stand on the story that you gave in the Bronx, in the courthouse?” Wilentz asked accusingly. “to a certain extent,” hauptmann replied weakly. “Well, i am talking about the story that you swore to before a court in the Bronx. do you stand on that?” Wilentz asked again. again, the witness answered, “to a certain extent, yes.” Capitalizing on this statement, Wilentz asked, “and to a certain extent, no?” “to a certain extent, no,” hauptmann conceded. Wilentz asked the witness about his statements to assistant district attorney Foley. Were those statements the truth or a lie? hauptmann stood on his prior answer that some was true, but other parts were not.39 This was an extremely successful start for attorney General Wilentz. in just a few questions, he had managed to get the witness to admit to lying under oath in prior court proceedings. Wilentz decided to focus on the defendant’s prior convictions in Germany. he got hauptmann to admit that he had escaped from jail after his arrest for selling stolen goods. he denied leaving a taunting note for the police after his escape.40 during reilly’s questioning, hauptmann claimed he had been convicted only once. Wilentz knew better and intended to prove it. hadn’t he been convicted of breaking and entry into the home of a local elected official by climbing through a window? hauptmann admitted the charge, but attempted to explain. Before he could offer his explanation, Wilentz offered yet another accusation, shouting, “isn’t it a fact that you were convicted, you and another man were convicted of holding up two women with a gun?” “it is,” hauptmann answered, beginning to show his anger. Wilentz asked the witness if the two women he had held up with a gun were wheeling baby carriages. losing his temper, hauptmann shouted, “everybody wheels baby carriages!” “everybody wheels baby carriages,” Wilentz repeated mockingly, “and you and this man held up these two women wheeling baby carriages, didn’t you?” attorney pope rose in objection, and Judge trenchard sustained the objection, saying, “he has answered the question. he says he was convicted. That is enough of the matter.”41

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Hauptmann Takes the Stand

--

/355348t

| 275 |

Wilentz had a few more questions about the defendant’s past. hauptmann denied being arrested or convicted for stealing from a restaurant in Kamenz, but admitted that he had illegally immigrated to the united states after failing in his first two attempts. he also admitted that he was still considered a fugitive in Germany, though he had made inquiries to see if it was safe for his return.42 abruptly, Wilentz changed the subject and handed the defendant a small red account book. hauptmann admitted that the book belonged to him and that the handwriting was his own. Wilentz pointed to a word in the book and commanded, “take a look at this word, particularly. tell me if that is your handwriting, that one word there.” hauptmann did not answer, so Wilentz continued, “or did some policeman write it?” “i,” hauptmann stammered, “i can’t remember every word i put in here.” But Wilentz was not going to let him off the hook so easily. “Well now,” Wilentz shouted, “This isn’t a joke. you know either it is your handwriting or it isn’t. is it your handwriting?” “it looks like my handwriting,” the witness admitted. “now, tell me, how do you spell ‘boat’?” Wilentz asked. “B-o-a-t.” Wilentz straightened up for his next accusation. “Why did you spell it b-o-a-d?” he demanded. hauptmann was completely flustered. he admitted that he might have spelled the word boat with a “d” eight years earlier when the word was written in his book, but he no longer spelled the word that way. as the questioning continued, hauptmann disputed whether he had written “boad” in his book, claiming that he could not remember writing it. Wilentz accused the witness of refusing to admit he wrote the word “boad” because he knew that he had written it that way in the note he had given to dr. Condon. no, hauptmann insisted, he had never given any notes to dr. Condon.43 Wilentz continued to badger the witness, pointing out various words and letters in the defendant’s handwriting that were similar to portions of the ransom letters. hauptmann continually denied these allegations. The attorney general handed hauptmann the board with drilled holes that the defendant had used to hide money. The defendant claimed the small holes were for storing bits, but were later used to hide money. “What do you have this other hole for?” Wilentz asked, knowing full well what the answer was. This prompted a loud and rather lengthy objection from the defense table. They did not want the jury to know what had been hidden in the large hole. Judge trenchard overruled the objection, and Wilentz asked again, “What did you drill the other hole for?” “to put something in,” the defendant answered hesitatingly.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 276 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“What did you put in?” Wilentz repeated. “it wasn’t money,” hauptmann answered. “if it wasn’t money, i say it’s objectionable,” reilly protested. after lengthy and somewhat animated arguments from both attorneys, the judge ordered the witness to answer. Given no other choice, hauptmann told the jury that he had hidden a small pistol in the wood. having gotten his admission, Wilentz moved to another topic.44 Judge trenchard made a serious mistake with this ruling. There was no accusation that hauptmann ever used a gun in the commission of the crime. While possessing the gun may have been in violation of new york laws, the defendant was not charged with that crime. Frankly, whether hauptmann owned a gun was not relevant on the question of whether he kidnapped the lindbergh baby. Clearly, the minimal probative value of the gun was outweighed by its prejudicial impact against the defendant. Judge trenchard should have sustained the defense’s objection. it was getting late in the afternoon, and Wilentz only had a few more minutes before recess. he quickly peppered the defendant with questions. “are you the Cemetery John that was up in Woodlawn Cemetery?” “positively not.” “are you the Cemetery John that was in the other cemetery?” “no, i was never in the cemetery.” “never were?” “no, sir.” “you live a few miles from either, don’t you?” Wilentz accused. “Well, it just happened,” the defendant responded.

Judge trenchard interrupted the proceeding and announced that court would resume the following monday morning at ten o’clock. hauptmann stepped down from the witness stand not quite as confident as he had been. Wilentz had scored numerous times against him. The first six hours of testimony had been brutal. yet, he faced more questioning on monday and had no way to know that he would actually be on the stand through Wednesday.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 32 |

more testimony from the hauptmanns

When hauptmann returned to the witness stand on monday morning, most courtroom observers expected Wilentz to question the witness with the same hammering style he had used on Friday. instead, Wilentz started slowly and had the witness discuss his various bank accounts and assets. hauptmann agreed that he was very careful about recording his finances in his various account books. The attorney general’s interest piqued when hauptmann admitted that some of his transactions were intentionally left out of the books. When asked to explain, hauptmann replied, “i saved money besides that my wife should not know. i put nothing in the book.” “oh. in other words, you were hiding it on your wife?” Wilentz asked. after hauptmann nodded affirmatively, Wilentz continued, “Well, you were hiding a lot of things on your wife, weren’t you?” “no, sir,” hauptmann interjected, “it is only the money i kept.”1 Without missing a beat, Wilentz asked about hauptmann’s relationship with Gerta henkel. he brought out that the two had met at hunter island while anna was away in europe. it was clear to those in the room that Wilentz was intimating that hauptmann and henkel had been having an affair. Wilentz paused for a moment to allow the jury to absorb the unspoken accusation before asking his next question.2 “let me ask you,” Wilentz began, “When you found $14,000 or more in gold, how did you feel, did you cry?” “i was excited,” hauptmann offered. Wilentz asked the defendant whether he told his wife about the money. he admitted that he had not told her. “didn’t she work and slave in a bakery and bring to you when you and she got married, her earnings and savings?” Wilentz asked angrily. “That has got nothing to do with them $14,000 at all,” hauptmann protested. Wilentz was determined not to let this go. he mentioned that anna had bought all of the furniture when the couple first started their home. “she gave you every dollar she had in the world, didn’t she?” Wilentz asked in a raised voice. | 277 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 278 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“so did i,” hauptmann insisted, “except these $14,000.” “you were partners, weren’t you, both working hard?” “yes.” “But,” Wilentz countered, “When you found $14,000 in gold, no more partnership with the wife?” “absolutely not,” the witness shouted, “Why should i make my wife excited about it?” Wilentz was clearly dissatisfied with the answers he was receiving. he demanded to know why hauptmann was hiding money from his wife, and why he had not told her about the $14,000 in gold certificates. hauptmann explained that he was considering building a house for his wife as a surprise.3 The prosecutor changed topics and began discussing the ransom notes and some of the misspellings. he pointed out how the writer of the letters had a peculiar habit of putting the letter “n” in inappropriate places and asked the witness. “That is a habit of yours, isn’t it, putting ‘n’s’ where they don’t belong?” “no,” the defendant answered. Wilentz responded to this answer by handing hauptmann a check. after the witness admitted he had written out this check for $74.00, Wilentz asked him to report to the jury how he had spelled the word “seventy.” hauptmann had spelled it “s-e-n-V-e-t-y.”4 Wilentz presented numerous examples of spelling errors that the defendant had made. exhibit after exhibit showed spelling errors that seemed remarkably similar to those in the ransom letters. Wilentz made sure to point them out to the jury. he seemed to have an almost endless supply of writing samples with spelling errors.5 after showing yet another error taken from hauptmann’s book, Wilentz pointed to drawings of a window and a ladder (which very much resembled the kidnapper’s ladder) and accused the witness of drawing them. hauptmann denied this, saying, “a little child used to come in our house and play inside and he put them in.”6 on and on went the questioning. Wilentz hammered away at hauptmann about his finances and various examples of his handwriting. he reviewed numerous figures and accounts, but always maintained a tone that demonstrated his contempt for the witness. turning to the finding of $14,000, Wilentz asked in a slow and deliberate pace, “When you took that money from the shoe box down into that garage and you took those gold certificates and put them in a basket, one after another, fives, tens, and twenties, whatever they were, you didn’t count it, did you?” “no.” “you left [sic] it lay in a basket all night and you didn’t count it,” the prosecutor asked sarcastically. “That is right.” “you left [sic] it lay another night and you didn’t count it?” “That is right,” hauptmann answered again.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

More Testimony from the Hauptmanns

/355348t

| 279 |

Wilentz shook his finger at the defendant as he asserted, “The reason you didn’t count it was because you knew, didn’t you?” “i didn’t know anything,” hauptmann insisted, “i didn’t.”7 Wilentz continued to batter hauptmann with accusatory questions throughout the day. he asked about his finances, his relationship with Gerta henkel, his relationship with his wife, and his partnership with isidor Fisch. minute after minute and hour after hour, Wilentz prolonged the questioning. Finally, he grabbed the board taken from hauptmann’s closet and handed it to him. “do you know what this is, mr. defendant?” he asked nastily. “a piece of board, yes.” hauptmann replied. “That is your handwriting on there, isn’t it?” Wilentz asked. “no.” “What?” Wilentz asked in a surprised voice. “no, sir.” The witness repeated. Wilentz was shocked at hauptmann’s denial. he asked the defendant if he remembered telling assistant district attorney Foley that he had written on this board. he also asked him if he recalled testifying under oath during his extradition hearing that he had written on the board. hauptmann admitted his prior statements, but claimed he had been excited before and not answered clearly.8 hauptmann’s stubborn refusal in this area seemed to fluster Wilentz a bit. The attorney general looked angrily at the defendant, saying, “This is funny to you, isn’t it? you are having a lot of . . .” “no, absolutely not,” hauptmann interrupted. “you are having a lot of fun with me, aren’t you?” Wilentz persisted. “no.” “Well, you are doing very well, you are smiling at me every five minutes?” “no.” “you think you are a big shot, don’t you?” Wilentz asked mockingly. “no. should i cry?” hauptmann responded in an equally derisive manner. “no, certainly you shouldn’t. you think you are bigger than everybody, don’t you?” “no, but i know i am innocent.” “yes,” Wilentz continued, “you are the man that has the will power, that is what you know isn’t it?” “no.” “you wouldn’t tell if they murdered you, would you?” “no!” hauptmann shouted. “no. Will power is everything with you, isn’t it?” “no, it is—i feel innocent and i am innocent and that keeps me the power to stand up.” “lying even when you swear to God to tell the truth. telling lies doesn’t mean anything.” Wilentz charged. hauptmann pointed his hand at Wilentz, defiantly saying, “stop that!”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 280 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“didn’t you swear to untruths in the Bronx Courthouse?” “stop that!” hauptmann roared. “didn’t you swear to untruths in the courthouse,” Wilentz repeated, “didn’t you lie under oath time and time again? didn’t you?” “i did not!” the defendant thundered. “you did not?” Wilentz asked sarcastically. “no!” the witness answered with his eyes widening with anger. “all right sir,” the prosecutor sniffed, “When you were arrested with the lindbergh ransom money and you had a twenty dollar bill, lindbergh ransom money, did they ask you where you got it?” hauptmann just stared at Wilentz, so he repeated, “did they ask you?” “They did.” “did you lie to them or did you tell them the truth?” again, hauptmann just stared at him. raising his voice for effect, Wilentz asked again, “did you lie to them or did you tell them the truth?” looking extremely uneasy, hauptmann answered, “i said not the truth.” “you lied, didn’t you?” “i did.” Wilentz seemed back on a roll. he smiled at hauptmann and said in a gloating voice, “you see, you are not smiling any more, are you?” “smiling?” “it has gotten a little more serious, hasn’t it?” “i guess it isn’t any place to smile here.” The defense should have objected to this entire line of questioning as it was argumentative and inappropriate. The attorney general was badgering the witness unmercifully, and defense counsel seemingly was doing nothing to protect him. eventually, mr. pope got to his feet and said, “Well, i think this has gone on far enough.” he glared at Wilentz and accused him of “patent abuse of the witness.” Judge trenchard ordered both counselors to address any and all remarks to the bench and not one another. realizing that things were becoming heated, trenchard gave everyone five minutes to calm down.9 When proceedings resumed, Wilentz continued his questioning in a more subdued manner. Wilentz asked about the defendant’s attic. hauptmann said he was familiar with the attic, but never noticed that any boards were missing.10 Wilentz spent the remaining hour in the afternoon session asking about isidor Fisch and the money hauptmann had found. he forced hauptmann to admit that he had lied about having the money on numerous occasions. even after the first batch of money was found, the defendant had lied, claiming he had no more, only to have the police find more money.11 Judge trenchard interrupted the questioning to announce that court would be adjourning until ten o’clock the next morning.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

More Testimony from the Hauptmanns

/355348t

| 281 |

on tuesday morning, hauptmann was once again on the witness stand. Wilentz continued his cross-examination through the entire day. he went through the defendant’s financial transactions one by one. he also asked about hauptmann’s dealings with isidor Fisch. Whereas the first two days of cross-examination had been exciting and newsworthy, this day was long, boring, and without any significant clashes. late in the afternoon, Wilentz entered two letters written by the defendant to isidor Fisch while he was in Germany. The clear intent was to show that hauptmann made no mention of finding any money. Both letters were written in German, so hauptmann was ordered off the stand to allow a German translator to read the letters in english.12 When the translator was finished, the two letters with english translations were entered into evidence. Then Wilentz requested that hauptmann return to the witness stand. he had more questions for him. Wilentz questioned hauptmann for almost the entire afternoon. he continued to probe into the defendant’s finances and question his relationship with isidor Fisch. near the end of the session, Wilentz returned to hauptmann’s testimony in new york and his statements to assistant district attorney Foley. This prompted edward reilly to object, claiming that his client had answered this question nearly twenty times. When Judge trenchard sustained the objection, Wilentz turned to his adversary, saying, “take the witness.” his cross-examination was finally over.13 reilly approached his client for redirect examination knowing full well that his client had been brutalized on cross-examination. his job now was to repair the damage. he spent a considerable amount of time referring to hauptmann’s testimony at his extradition hearing. over Wilentz’s objection, reilly introduced and read large portions of the transcript. he had his client testify again that the writing on the closet board was not his handwriting. hauptmann did not help himself when he acknowledged that, while the handwriting was not his, the numbers were. Basically, he admitted writing the numbers, but not Condon’s address or phone number.14 This was not at all helpful for his case. reilly moved on to isidor Fisch and had the witness testify that Fisch had been a crooked businessman. Fisch had lied to hauptmann and many others. reilly hoped to show that Fisch was a con man who had duped his client. When he finished this line of questioning, he asked for a recess until the following morning. since it was almost 4:30 p.m., trenchard agreed. on Wednesday morning, hauptmann walked to the witness stand for the final time. reilly had the witness describe how he spent the money he had found. he did not wear a disguise or attempt to hide his identity in any way. he spent the money openly and notoriously. reilly’s hope was to convince the jury that a guilty man would have taken steps to cover his tracks. his client had not done so. Wilentz briefly questioned the witness when reilly finished. he started with the spending of gold notes and moved on to hauptmann’s work at majestic. lastly, he

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 282 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

once again went back to the defendant’s admissions about the closet board during his extradition hearing. Then, with little fanfare, Wilentz announced, “That is all,” and sat down.15 after nearly sixteen hours, Bruno richard hauptmann’s testimony was finally over. From the defense perspective, hauptmann’s testimony had been very damaging. he had been anything but sympathetic, and Wilentz had caught him in dozens of lies. even when he denied kidnapping the baby, his tone lacked genuine emotion or feeling.16 anna hauptmann was the defense’s next witness. she seemed almost frightened as she approached the witness stand in which her husband had spent so many hours. she wore a small black hat and a navy-blue dress with a white pendant. realizing how frightened she was, reilly started slowly asking how and when she came to america. anna replied that she entered the country on new year’s day in 1924. she lived in new york City and was able to find work in nine days.17 There was a significant commotion in the courtroom that made it difficult to hear the witness. reilly turned to the judge to complain about the noise from the spectators. Judge trenchard ordered anyone without a seat to leave the courtroom. When one of the court officers announced that there were more seats available, the judge announced a five-minute recess. When court resumed, he expected quiet. Five minutes later, anna was back on the witness stand, and reilly resumed his questions. anna told the court that she had met her husband three months after her arrival. The couple was married in october 1925. she described their early life together in new york City and later in the Bronx. she talked about their trip to California and her trip to Germany.18 she was starting to relax now, so reilly asked anna about her job at the bakery, which was owned by the Fredericksens. she confirmed that she worked there from seven to five, with the exception of tuesdays. on tuesdays, she stayed until closing at 8:00 p.m.19 “now, on tuesday, march 1, 1932, did your husband call for you that night?” reilly asked. “he did,” anna replied. “at what time?” “Well, maybe it was seven o’clock, maybe quarter after seven. i don’t know exactly the minutes.” anna confirmed that her husband stayed at the bakery until about half past nine, when he took her home. They stayed home for the rest of the evening.20 “now, do you remember another date that has been spoken of here, april 2, 1932?” reilly quizzed. “yes, i remember that,” anna offered. she explained that hans Kloppenburg, a friend of her husband, visited them that evening in their home. They played the guitar and mandolin and sang songs throughout the evening.21

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

More Testimony from the Hauptmanns

/355348t

| 283 |

reilly quickly moved to the next date of importance, november 26, 1933. of course anna remembered that date. it was her husband’s birthday. That particular birthday, there had been a party at their house with many of their friends. richard never left the house that night, anna insisted.22 anna was then asked about isidor Fisch. she described the relationship he had with her husband as best she could. she knew they were selling furs, but not much more. “now, mrs. hauptmann,” reilly continued, “do you remember a little gathering or party, a farewell party, for Fisch at your home?” “yes, i do,” she answered. The party was held just days before Fisch left for Germany. reilly asked anna if Fisch had brought anything with him to the party. Clearly, he was hoping anna would say he brought a shoebox with him. unfortunately, she replied that she had not seen him arrive and did not know if he brought anything. The only thing she did know was that Fisch had left two large suitcases with her husband.23 reilly showed anna a picture of her kitchen, which she quickly identified. she testified that she was able to reach the top shelf of the closet only by standing on her toes. “did you know anything about any box, shoe box, or cardboard box on the top shelf of the broom closet?” reilly asked. “no,” she answered, “i never used that shelf.”24 next, reilly had the witness describe an incident when water leaked into the closet. it had been so bad that she complained to the landlord, who arranged for a plumber to fix the problem. The incident took place in either 1933 or 1934; she could not be sure.25 Though this testimony did not prove that Bruno put a shoebox with money in the closet, it did support his contention that water leaked into the closet. it was not much, but it did help. after asking a few more questions about how much money the couple earned, reilly asked, “you trusted your husband, didn’t you?” “Who shouldn’t trust a husband?” anna answered. upon that answer, reilly turned and said, “The witness is yours, General.” it was very quiet as Wilentz approached the witness. most people inherently felt sorry for anna hauptmann. she was a loving and loyal housewife trying to protect her husband. yet, the crowd also knew how brutally the attorney general had treated the defendant. Would he do the same with his wife? anna obviously thought so and she seemed frightened, but determined. Wilentz may have been a tough prosecutor, but he was nobody’s fool. if he went after anna hauptmann the way he had with her husband, the jury, judge, and everybody in the courtroom would hate him for it. instead, he decided to take a much more conciliatory tone, which was a pleasant surprise for the audience and a bit unnerving though welcome one for anna.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 284 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Through his questioning, Wilentz got anna to admit that the only items she was aware of that Fisch left in her home were two suitcases, a handful of furs, and some books. The suitcases contained only clothing. now Wilentz turned to more pressing matters and asked about the kitchen closet. anna admitted that she never saw a shoebox on the top shelf, but insisted that she could not have seen the top of the shelf due to its height. Wilentz was ready for this. he presented the witness with a picture of the closet. anna agreed that her apron could be seen hanging from a hook and that she could reach the hook with no difficulty. Wilentz pointed out that the hook was slightly higher than the top shelf. he also pointed out that the top of the shelf could easily be seen if one stood only three feet from the closet. anna disputed this, saying, “Why should i stay away a few feet and look up there?”26 undaunted, Wilentz asked mrs. hauptmann if she regularly cleaned the closet. she advised that she cleaned it once a week, but never the top shelf. “you really don’t mean that, do you, mrs. hauptmann?” Wilentz asked sarcastically. anna was unwilling to budge and forcefully replied, “i didn’t use that.”27 she did store some things on the shelf. anna admitted that she kept shelf trimmings on the top shelf. Though she was initially hesitant, she eventually conceded that she kept a tobacco box up there that she used to store her soap coupons. how often had she taken the box down to add or remove coupons? anna replied that she would retrieve the box once every three or four months. sensing an opening, Wilentz asked, “and from november or december, 1933, until september 1934, i suppose that you took that box down at least two or three times, didn’t you?” “maybe i did,” anna agreed. “now, when you went to take that box down, that tin box down, you had to reach into that closet, didn’t you?” “yes.” “and onto that top shelf?” Wilentz added. “yes,” she admitted. “you didn’t see any shoe box there, did you?” Wilentz asked accusingly. realizing the damage of this admission to her husband’s defense, anna tried to stall, but the prosecutor would have none of it. “please answer the question, madam.” he insisted. “no,” anna answered dejectedly, “i didn’t.”28 if Bruno richard hauptmann had really put a shoebox with gold certificates on the top shelf of the kitchen closet as he claimed, why had anna never seen it? The implication was that she did not see it because it was never there. With this important admission secured, Wilentz turned to the alibi for march 1, 1932. he referred anna back to her testimony at the extradition hearing and her statements to inspector Bruckman. had she not told the police and the court that

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

More Testimony from the Hauptmanns

/355348t

| 285 |

she could not remember if her husband had been with her on march 1, 1932? anna tried to argue with Wilentz, but ultimately admitted that she had said that. Finally, Wilentz asked anna about the day her husband was arrested. she acknowledged that she had been brought down to the garage when the police found the hidden gold certificates. “now, you didn’t know, did you, that your husband had put money in this can and hid it in the garage, did you?” Wilentz asked. “i didn’t, no.” “you didn’t know that he had taken pieces of wood and nailed it into the garage to hide money, did you?” Wilentz continued. “i didn’t know anything about that,” anna protested. “Whatever he did in that garage with reference to taking those pieces of board and putting money in them and hiding them, that was done without your knowledge, wasn’t it?” “i didn’t know anything about it.” “you didn’t know a thing about it?” Wilentz repeated, “you don’t know when he did it either, do you, mrs. hauptmann?” “no, i do not.” “and when the money was found, it was a surprise to you, wasn’t it?” “it was,” she conceded. turning to the judge, Wilentz announced, “That is all. Thank you, mrs. hauptmann.” reilly tried to resurrect her testimony on redirect, but it was too late. Wilentz had done a masterful job. he had taken her entire testimony apart and got her to make admissions helpful to the prosecution. Worse yet, he had accomplished it in a completely polite and respectful manner. as anna walked quietly from the chair, the defense attorneys ignored her as she passed, almost as if she had betrayed them by answering truthfully. she had tried very hard to help her richard, but had been unable to overcome the prosecutor’s devastating cross-examination. one of the observers of the trial wrote a book about a year later and described the scene of anna walking past the defense table. Quite strikingly, he wrote: The wave of sympathy which had swelled toward her reached its climax when, at the close of her testimony, she was utterly ignored by defense attorneys. a playwright in constructing a play would never have permitted the wife of the defendant to pass so completely into obscurity, and the spectators were keen to sense the pathos of the situation.29

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 286 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 33 |

“Where are you Getting These Witnesses? They are Killing me”

reilly’s next witness was a young man of swedish descent named elvert Carlstrom. he told the jury that he had been a customer of Fredericksen’s Bakery on the night of the kidnapping, arriving around half past eight. he remembered that night because it was his birthday. asked if he saw anyone in the bakery that night, Carlstrom pointed to Bruno hauptmann and said, “i saw that fellow sitting right there.” The witness reported that hauptmann was sitting at a front table reading a newspaper.1 This was potentially damaging testimony. if he withstood cross-examination, Carlstrom was the first alibi witness without a true interest in the case. his importance dimmed quickly, however. When david Wilentz asked him to give a physical description of the man he saw that night, Carlstrom became evasive. When the witness kept looking over at hauptmann, Wilentz immediately interjected, “never mind looking at him. look at me.” The prosecutor was not going to allow the witness to look at hauptmann while he described him. Carlstrom contradicted himself repeatedly. he would offer a description of the man and then change his mind seconds later. The more Wilentz pressed, the more hostile he became. at one point, Wilentz asked the witness to compare hauptmann’s eyes to his own, and Carlstrom replied, “i can’t see my eyes.”2 after a few more questions, it became obvious that Carlstrom could not give a solid description. Wilentz started asking the man about various jobs he had held and about his activities after he left the bakery that night. For well over an hour, Wilentz kept hammering at the man. Finally, near the end of the afternoon session, Wilentz indicated that he still had quite a few more questions for the witness. Judge trenchard adjourned the trial for the day.3 The following morning, Wilentz continued his verbal assault. he was much more confident because his investigators had spent the previous evening uncovering two witnesses who would destroy Carlstrom’s credibility. Wilentz again asked the witness to describe his movements at the bakery that | 286 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“Where Are You Getting These Witnesses? They Are Killing Me”

| 287 |

evening. Then he asked him where he had gone after leaving the bakery. The witness reported that he might have gone to the movies, but eventually ended up in Brooklyn for the remainder of the evening until nearly five in the morning. asked what he was doing in Brooklyn, Carlstrom refused to answer. “Will your answer incriminate you, sir?” Wilentz prodded. “yes,” elvert admitted. “it will?” “yes.” “and that is why you don’t want to answer?” Wilentz concluded. “yes.”4 Wilentz moved on for awhile, but returned to this subject rather abruptly. after reminding the jury about the refusal to answer, Wilentz asked accusingly, “do you care to say whether you were in the company of any women between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.?” “yes,” Carlstrom confessed, “i was.”5 reilly offered a halfhearted redirect examination, but the witness was irreparably damaged, so he just called his next witness, louis Kiss, a “silk artist” from new york. Kiss told reilly that on march 1, 1932, he was delivering two pints of whiskey to a friend when he inadvertently took the wrong subway and found himself outside Fredericksen’s Bakery. he decided to take a break and get something to eat. he had almost finished his coffee when a man entered with a large dog and spoke to the waitress in German. reilly had hauptmann stand. “is that the defendant you are speaking of?” reilly inquired. “yes,” the man agreed.6 after a brief recess, Wilentz was allowed to question the witness. Though he questioned the witness for some time, he primarily focused on two points. First, he asked Kiss why he was sure that this incident had taken place on march 1—why did he remember that date? Kiss explained that he had taken his child to the hospital on Washington’s birthday, and the events he was describing took place exactly one week later. Wilentz produced a calendar and told the witness that 1932 was a leap year. Consequently, one week after taking his child to the hospital was February 29, one day earlier. reilly objected, but the damage was done. Then Wilentz focused on the whiskey Kiss had been carrying that night. The witness explained that he was delivering whiskey and rum to a man named leo singer. he also admitted that he had made the rum himself and was essentially a bootlegger.7 since prohibition was still in effect in 1932, Kiss had just admitted to a crime.8 reilly’s next witness was a manhattan restaurant owner named august Van henke. on the night of the kidnapping, at around 8:00 p.m., he claimed that he was at a gas station on Boston post road in the Bronx when he saw a man walking a

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 288 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

large dog. since his own dog was missing, Van henke approached the man and asked about the animal. The man explained that the dog belonged to a baker and he was just walking him. “and do you see that man in the courtroom?” reilly prompted. Van henke pointed at hauptmann and identified him as the mysterious dog walker. he further testified that, shortly after hauptmann’s arrest, he had written to mr. Fawcett (hauptmann’s first attorney) advising that he recognized hauptmann in the photo as the man he saw walking the dog that night. Wilentz surprised everyone in the courtroom with his first question. “What is your name, sir?” “august Van henke.” “do you know august Wunstorf?” “yes.” “Who is august Wunstorf?” Wilentz asked. “i put the money—” Van henke started. Wilentz interrupted and demanded again in a loud voice, “Who was august Wunstorf?” “That is me.” “i thought you said your name was Van henke?” “yes.” “Well, is it Van henke or is it august Wunstorf?” Wilentz demanded. “august Van henke,” the witness replied. after further questioning, Van henke admitted that he had used Wunstorf as an alias because he had gotten into some trouble owning a restaurant and speakeasy.9 about ten minutes later, Wilentz asked about another name. “Who is august marhenke?” “august markenke through the war,” the witness answered non-responsively. “Just a minute,” Wilentz interrupted, “Who is august marhenke?” “That is me,” the witness admitted. “That is your name?” Wilentz asked in an almost exasperated voice. “yes.” “and august Wunstorf?” “all me, yes.” The witness confirmed. needless to say, the man of many identities did not impress the jury that day. The next witness, lou harding, was even worse. harding, a ditchdigger from new Jersey, testified that he was working in princeton, new Jersey, on march 1, 1932. Between two and three o’clock in the afternoon, harding claimed two men drove up to him in a dark blue car with new Jersey license plates and asked for directions to the lindbergh estate. inside the car was a folded ladder.10 “Was either one of those men this defendant?” reilly quizzed. The witness replied that hauptmann was not one of the men he saw that day.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“Where Are You Getting These Witnesses? They Are Killing Me”

| 289 |

Bringing forth the kidnapper’s ladder, reilly asked harding if it was the same ladder he had seen. harding answered, “it was something kind of like that.”11 he explained that the ladder he saw was partially covered, preventing him from getting a good look at it. Wilentz wasted little time bringing out harding’s criminal past. he had been convicted of assault and battery on two occasions. “Weren’t you convicted of another crime of assault and battery on a woman?” Wilentz charged. “yes, i was convicted of a crime,” the witness admitted. “an attack on a woman, wasn’t it?” Wilentz persisted. harding insisted that he was not convicted of assaulting a woman. instead, he referred to it as “carnal abuse.”12 Though Wilentz continued his cross-examination for almost another ten minutes, it really was academic. harding’s attitude and admission of “carnal abuse” had already destroyed his credibility. to make matters worse, harding kept changing the description of the ladder every time Wilentz asked about it. at reilly’s request, the court took a brief recess. reilly spent the break putting up the various letter charts created by albert s. osborn because his next witness, John trendley, was being offered as a handwriting expert. When court resumed, david Wilentz announced that assistant district attorney lanigan would handle cross-examination. he had an errand to run and asked the judge to be excused for an hour. The request was granted without objection. With the way Wilentz was destroying their witnesses, the defense was glad to see him leave. trendley told the court that he had been examining disputed documents for over forty years and had testified over 350 times in court. This was not considered sufficient by mr. lanigan, and he requested an opportunity to voir dire the witness. in layman’s english, this meant that lanigan wanted to question the witness about his qualifications before he gave any expert opinions. Judge trenchard granted the request.13 lanigan did a fair job of questioning the witness. he brought out that trendley had worked on a case in new york where he testified that nine signatures on a will were genuine, only to have the court declare them forgeries.14 “now, mr. trendley,” lanigan asked, “do you ever recall testifying in a case where you first gave one side an opinion that the signature was genuine and then without realizing it, you gave the other side an opinion that it was a forgery?” “i do,” the witness admitted. “do you recall testifying in a case such as that?” “yes.” Then, to solidify the significance of the point, lanigan asked, “you gave two different opinions about the same handwriting in the same case, is that right?” “yes.”15 When he was finished, lanigan asked the court to disqualify trendley as an expert. Judge trenchard disagreed and noted that he would not disqualify a witness

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 290 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

merely because he had made a few mistakes in a forty-year career. he ordered reilly to proceed. trendley testified that he had examined photos of the ransom notes in great detail and had reviewed the originals for about two-and-a-half hours. he had also studied the handwriting samples taken from hauptmann. he felt this was more than enough time to reach a conclusion on authorship. however, instead of pressing the witness for his conclusions, reilly turned to the judge. “it has been a tiresome day for me, on account of my throat, carrying the burden. Would it be asking too much to let this go until morning?” Judge trenchard was well known for his concern for other people’s health. he had been checking on several jurors throughout the trial and had offered cough drops to the attorneys on several occasions. it was therefore no surprise that he granted reilly’s request. on Friday morning, reilly seemed to be feeling better and dove right into questioning the witness. “as a result of your study and examination of the ransom notes and the hauptmann request writings, are you in a position to render an opinion as to whether or not hauptmann, this defendant, wrote the ransom notes?” “in my opinion,” trendley began, “he did not.” trendley disputed many of osborn’s conclusions, claiming there were significant differences in the formation of the letters in the ransom notes, as compared to hauptmann’s known writing. he also rejected any of the common spelling errors due to concern over police coercion. For the balance of the morning and into the afternoon, reilly masterfully walked the witness through the various conclusions and testimony of the state’s experts. using leading questions, reilly set forth helpful conclusions, and trendley kept agreeing with him. Frankly, lanigan should have objected to reilly leading the witness. it is inappropriate to suggest answers to your own witness, but lanigan allowed reilly to get away with it. When he had finished his direct examination, reilly was quite pleased. he had gracefully woven some solid testimony for his client. perhaps this might be their first good witness.16 lanigan tried very hard on cross-examination, but trendley stubbornly refused to budge. eventually, lanigan gave up and sat down. Finally, a defense witness had stood up to the prosecution’s questioning. hoping to continue his good fortune, reilly called peter sommer to the stand. sommer told the jury that he was on the 42nd street Ferry during the afternoon of march 1, 1932, traveling from new Jersey to manhattan. While on board, he saw two men. The first was about five feet nine inches tall, while the other was only five feet four inches tall. reilly handed sommer a picture of isidor Fisch, and the witness identified him as the shorter of the two men he had seen. Before the boat arrived, sommer saw the same two men helping a lady out of a trolley car. The woman was carrying a blond-haired baby. he estimated the child

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

“Where Are You Getting These Witnesses? They Are Killing Me”

| 291 |

to be two years old. he had gotten a really good look at the woman and was certain he could identify her. reilly showed him a picture of Violet sharp and asked if he recognized her. sommer looked at the photograph and answered, “i would say that resembles the woman very strongly.”17 david Wilentz, who had returned to the courtroom after the lunch break, rose to cross-examine the witness. he had barely gotten started when the witness became hostile, claiming that Wilentz was trying to “puzzle” him. “i am not going to puzzle you up,” Wilentz assured him. “and i am not going to be puzzled,” the witness shot back, “i am stating that the short man who came—” “Just one minute now,” Wilentz interjected, “you are going to answer the questions.” “all right, i am going to answer them.” “yes, sir,” Wilentz started. “But, i am not going to be puzzled by anybody,” sommer insisted. By the end of the afternoon, Wilentz had indeed “puzzled” the witness. sommer was unable to identify isidor Fisch or Violet sharp from photographs presented to him by the prosecutor, claiming they were either blurry or from a bad angle. Throughout, sommer kept complaining that he was being tricked or bamboozled by the shrewd prosecutor. When the afternoon session ended, Wilentz told the judge that he had more questions for the witness. in reality, Wilentz wanted the intervening weekend for his investigators to thoroughly check out mr. sommer. Judge trenchard gaveled court to a close until 10:00 a.m. on monday, February 4. on monday morning, Judge trenchard started proceedings with a warning. he had learned that people were filming the trial despite his order to the contrary. he made it clear that he was authorizing the court officers to take whatever action was necessary to prevent further recordings. anyone caught filming the trial in any way would be removed from the courtroom.18 When the judge finished his admonishment, he allowed cross-examination to continue. Wilentz had barely uttered a question when the witness exclaimed that he wanted to correct an error in his testimony. mr. sommer explained that it was not the same two men on the boat that escorted the woman to the trolley. in fact there were three men. one was tall and the other two were short.19 Wilentz exploited this admission very well. he went through a substantial portion of the answers the witness had given mr. reilly. The witness announced several times that he was changing his answer. each time he did so, his credibility with the jury faded. suddenly, almost in mid-sentence, Wilentz changed topics and asked accusingly, “you are a professional witness, aren’t you, mr. sommer?” This prompted objections from the defense table, but Wilentz was allowed to continue.20 Though sommer denied the charge, Wilentz knew he had him. he went through several cases where sommer had testified. he then pointed out that the witness had

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 292 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

testified falsely in one of those cases. When sommer denied it, Wilentz pulled out an affidavit sworn to by mr. sommer in which he stated that he had testified falsely. Wilentz pressed the matter further and eventually got the witness to admit that he had threatened to go to the district attorney’s office and accuse the lawyer of suborning perjury if he was not paid money for his testimony. once the money was paid, he chose not to report his false testimony.21 reilly tried to save his witness with more questions. he got the witness to say that two men were with him when he reported seeing the men on the boat and in the trolley to the police. Their names were Joseph dutt and Carl Joerg.22 sommer insisted that he had seen three men and one woman that day, but it was clear that the jury no longer believed him. hauptmann was also displeased with his witnesses thus far. he had been visited the previous saturday by lloyd Fisher. in a depressed tone, hauptmann lamented, “Where are you getting these witnesses? They are killing me.” after hearing from peter sommer on monday, Fisher knew that hauptmann was right.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

| 34 |

The defense rests

after sommer slinked from the stand, lloyd Fisher called sebastian Benjamin lupica to the stand. The defense was hoping for great things from this witness. lupica was originally subpoenaed by the prosecution and actually testified for them before the grand jury. however, there were problems with his story, and his credibility was damaged when he sold his story to a tabloid. Thus, Wilentz decided not to use him, and Fisher was sure lupica’s testimony would damage the state’s case. lupica told the jury that he was attending princeton preparatory school and that he lived with his parents near the lindberghs’ sourland estate. on march 1, 1932, he was getting his mail at the end of lindbergh lane when he saw a car come around the bend and park on the wrong side of the street. The man in the car just sat there as if waiting for lupica to leave.1 as lupica drove slowly past the car, he saw two sections of a ladder running from the back windshield to the front seat. he saw the same ladder later that evening at the lindbergh estate.2 asked to describe the man in the car, lupica answered, “The man i saw in the car had a dark coat on, black, dark fedora hat, was from 35 to 40 years old.” he also added that the man had “thin features.”3 The car was a dark blue or black 1929 dodge with new Jersey license plates.4 turning to the crucial point of the testimony, Fisher asked the witness if he could identify Bruno richard hauptmann as the man he saw in the car that night. lupica replied that he could not.5 as usual, Wilentz was ready for the witness. he presented the court with an article from The Daily Mirror. in that story, mr. lupica stated that he could identify hauptmann as the man he saw that night.6 to make matters worse, Wilentz got the witness to admit that though he could not identify hauptmann, he did bear a strong resemblance to the man he saw.7 With another witness having failed, reilly stood up and called hans Kloppenburg to the stand. he testified on direct examination that he was at hauptmann’s home on the night of april 2, 1932, and was with hauptmann until nearly midnight. | 293 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 294 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

Bruno richard hauptmann wearing a fedora.

This was important because april 2, 1932, was the night the ransom was paid. obviously, hauptmann could not be at the cemetery and with hans Kloppenburg at his home at the same time.8 Kloppenburg also was present at the farewell party for isidor Fisch. in fact, he saw Fisch arrive and carry a small box under his arm into the kitchen with hauptmann. This seemed to support the defense’s position that isidor Fisch had given the money to hauptmann.9 unfortunately for hauptmann, this testimony was damaged during cross-examination. First, Kloppenburg admitted that he did not see Fisch leave the party and therefore did not know if he left with the same package.10 Worse, he was forced to admit that when he was questioned by the police, he did not remember if he had seen hauptmann on april 2, 1932. he just knew he had seen him in april, but was unsure of the date.11 it is now clear that both hans Kloppenburg and anna hauptmann were not telling the truth about the evening of april 2, 1932. mark Falzini, the archivist for the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Defense Rests

--

/355348t

| 295 |

new Jersey state police museum, has uncovered documentation proving that there was no gas or electricity at hauptmann’s home on that evening. in a report dated october 1, 1934, detective patterson of the new Jersey state police noted that he had been advised by W. G. peterson, the credit manager of the Bronx Gas and electric Company, that hauptmann’s landlord ordered the service shut off on march 29, 1932. it was not turned back on until hauptmann requested it on april 4, 1932.12 neither anna hauptmann nor hans Kloppenburg ever mentioned anything about playing music in the pitch dark. had the evening actually occurred, the total darkness and cold temperature in the house would have been something they would have remembered. Though both maintained this story until their deaths, anna and hans were either lying or just plain wrong about the date. When Wilentz was through with Kloppenburg, Judge trenchard recessed for lunch. it was not until 1:45 p.m. that court resumed, and a woman named anna Bonesteel was called to testify. mrs. Bonesteel told the jury she operated a restaurant in yonkers. on the night of the kidnapping, Violet sharp came to her restaurant at about half past seven in the evening. she was carrying a gray blanket and appeared nervous. she said that she was waiting for someone. after nearly an hour, a car pulled up, and sharp left with whomever was driving.13 When the attorney general confronted Bonesteel with the fact that sharp had been at the sourland estate until at least 8:30 p.m. that evening, the witness dug in her heels and refused to admit that she was mistaken.14 Wilentz showed Bonesteel a picture and asked if it was the woman she saw at the restaurant. When she said it was not, Wilentz revealed that the photograph was of Violet sharp. The witness protested that it was not Violet sharp, but eventually conceded rather weakly that it might have been her.15 When Wilentz sat down, he was confident that he had bested another witness for the defense. The next two witnesses were Joseph dutt and Carl Joerg. They both testified that they went with peter sommer to the police station when he offered his story. They had no information, though, concerning the substance of sommer’s testimony. as witnesses, they were quite useless.16 The next witness, paul Vetterle, actually helped the defense. he testified that he was at hauptmann’s home on the night of his birthday party, november 26, 1933. This date is important because of Cecille Barr’s testimony that hauptmann had given her a folded gold note at loew’s Theater that same evening.17 Wilentz was unable to shake Vetterle’s testimony, and the defense had a small victory. They now had a witness who survived cross-examination that challenged the testimony of Cecille Barr. The only question was whether the jury would believe Barr or Vetterle. two members of the new Jersey state police, russell snook and h. norman schwartzkopf, were the next two witnesses. Through both of these witnesses, reilly

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 296 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

established that his client’s fingerprints were not found on the kidnapper’s ladder. Wilentz, knowing that he could counter this by claiming that hauptmann used gloves, did not press the witnesses. When schwartzkopf left the stand, reilly informed the judge that they had exhausted all of their planned witnesses for the day. since it was already past 4:00 p.m., the judge gaveled the session to a close. The first witness to take the stand on tuesday morning was philip moses. moses was unemployed, but had driven a cab in 1932. in fact, on the night of april 2, 1932, he recalled seeing three or four men near a stalled green car near st. raymond’s Cemetery at around eight o’clock.18 his testimony on direct was not of great significance. however, any credibility he had with the jury was probably lost when the witness started doing an imitation of Will rogers.19 The next witness, maria muller (anna hauptmann’s niece), testified that she was at hauptmann’s birthday party on november 26, 1933. her testimony seemed to support Vetterle’s account. however, on cross-examination, muller admitted that she had previously told the police that there was no party that night. reilly decided to pull a little stunt with his next witness, Joseph tartell. he testified that he was a regular customer at loew’s Theater. reilly tried to get the witness to testify that Barr was unable to recognize him. however, the judge sustained objection after objection from the prosecution until finally reilly gave up and sat down. in all likelihood, most of the jury had no idea what tartell was trying to say.20 The following two witnesses, otto and louis Wollenburg, testified that they were at the farewell party for isidor Fisch. neither saw Fisch arrive, and they had no information about any shoebox Fisch may or may not have had. since the state did not dispute that a party had been held for Fisch, there was little cross-examination.21 reilly called Bertha hoff as his next witness. Bertha testified that isidor Fisch and a local farmer came to her house in november 1933. reilly asked the witness if Fisch had any bundles with him, and Wilentz jumped from his chair in protest. after hearing from both sides, Judge trenchard sustained the objection. Though reilly made a somewhat dramatic speech about his intentions to prove that isidor Fisch was the man at the cemetery, he withdrew his witness and asked for permission to recall her later. The judge granted the request, but reilly never recalled Bertha.22 reilly’s next witness was John seykora, an agent with the united states department of Justice. seykora testified that he had interviewed and investigated John Condon once he became involved in the case. reilly asked seykora if the investigation showed Condon to be an eccentric. seykora denied this. Then to the shock of everyone in the court, reilly asked if the investigation revealed that Condon sometimes paraded around the neighborhood in woman’s clothing. he followed this by asking if parents had objected to Condon being involved with the Boy scouts. The witness vehemently denied all of it.23

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Defense Rests

--

/355348t

| 297 |

reilly was just throwing out any accusation he could think of to discredit Condon. Frankly, for reilly to accuse Condon of being a transvestite and/or a pedophile without one scintilla of evidence to back it up was reprehensible. it also shows how desperate reilly was becoming. With witness after witness being proved liars or charlatans, reilly was willing to try just about anything. Wilentz used his cross-examination wisely by asking, “is it not a fact that dr. Condon was known throughout the Bronx as a leader in Boy scout, Girl scout, and other civic movements, and as a patriotic citizen?” The witness replied, “yes, sir.” When Wilentz finished, Judge trenchard signaled it was time for lunch. as the jury filed out, many of the courtroom observers felt that reilly had really embarrassed himself. When the afternoon session began, reilly called Benjamin heier to the stand. after just a few questions and an objection from Wilentz, reilly asked heier to step down, promising to call him again shortly. Victor schussler was next. he was a neighbor of hauptmann and was present at the farewell party. Fisch arrived before he did, so schussler never had the chance to see if he arrived with a shoebox. he also testified that he kept some of his tools in hauptmann’s basement, and they were missing after the police searched it.24 during cross-examination, Wilentz showed the witness the chisel found at the scene of the kidnapping. mr. schussler replied that it was not his chisel. he also got the witness to admit that he did not own a wood plane. lastly, and most importantly, schussler admitted that he told the police that he always wondered where hauptmann got his money when he was not working.25 hilda and otto heyne testified next. Both said they attended the farewell party for isidor Fisch. neither saw Fisch arrive, and neither saw any package or shoebox.26 now reilly recalled Benjamin heier to the stand. heier testified that on april 2, 1932, he was parked by st. raymond’s Cemetery with a young woman. around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m., heier saw a man jump to the sidewalk from the cemetery gate. heier got a good look at the man in his headlights and identified isidor Fisch as the man he saw.27 Wilentz cross-examined heier for quite a long time. ultimately, he uncovered two significant points. First, heier had a criminal record.28 second, he changed the time when he saw the man leaping from the gate from 9:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.29 This placed the incident well beyond the time of the ransom payment and severely weakened his testimony. Wilentz finished his questioning, but would later revisit mr. heier’s testimony. The final witness for the day was George steinweg, owner of a steamship company. he testified that he sold a ticket for passage to Germany to isidor Fisch. he also noticed that Fisch had a large sum of money.30 during questioning by mr. Wilentz, the witness admitted that he was unaware that hauptmann had given Fisch nearly $2,000 for the trip. he also said he had no knowledge where the money had come from.31

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 298 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

The next day, the defense called sam streppone. streppone testified that isidor Fisch had brought a radio to his business for repair. he left the radio and a shoebox with streppone for nearly six hours before reclaiming them. streppone never looked in the box or discovered its contents.32 Wilentz wasted little time destroying the witness. he pointed out that streppone had been institutionalized in a mental asylum on at least five occasions. streppone said he no longer suffered from psychosis, but the damage was done.33 The next witness was lieutenant sjostrom from the Bureau of identification of the new Jersey state police. lloyd Fisher had sjostrom testify that hauptmann’s fingerprints were not found in the nursery, on the window, on the ladder, or anywhere else related to the crime scene. Wilentz easily got around this by having the witness state that no fingerprints would be expected if the criminal wore gloves. he also added that an experienced criminal usually wore gloves.34 The next two witnesses, louis Kubler and Frank Kelly, were new Jersey state troopers. Kubler was asked about fingerprints. he offered nothing particularly enlightening.35 Kelly was asked about the state of the nursery when he examined it. Great attention was made to a beer stein located near the window. The defense was trying to insinuate that the ransom note might have been held down by the stein. if that were so, then someone moved it and tampered with the crime scene. Kelly insisted that the note was left on the sill with nothing holding it down.36 Wilentz was not concerned about the stein holding down the note. he was concerned about the placement of the stein. during his questioning, Kelly testified that the stein would not have been in the way of a man climbing through the window.37 Continuing his effort to blame isidor Fisch, reilly called oscar John Bruckman, a cab driver, to the stand. Bruckman said he used to drive Fisch around when he had his pie-making business. on one particular day, Fisch paid him $5 for a ride, which he took out of a large roll of money. he did not know if the notes were gold notes. Wilentz did not bother to question him.38 Gustave miller took the stand next. he told the jury that he had performed some repair work in hauptmann’s home in august 1934. he repaired a leaky pipe in the kitchen closet. as part of the job, he went to the attic and observed the same pipe leaking. reilly cleverly had the witness testify that he did not see any boards missing from the attic floor. Wilentz was able to deflect some of this testimony when miller said he did not notice if the boards covered the entire attic floor or not. The defense now had testimony proving hauptmann’s story of water seeping into the kitchen closet in august 1934.39 The next witness, Theron main, started off very well for the defense. he testified that isidor Fisch had given him a $20 gold note and flashed more goldbacks later.40 his testimony crumbled during cross-examination when he described a gold note as “yellow on one side and green on the other.”41 Gold notes were distinguishable by a seal on the bill. They did not have a yellow side. Clearly, the man had never seen a gold note before and just assumed they were yellow because of the nickname “goldbacks.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Defense Rests

--

/355348t

| 299 |

The next witness, an extremely attractive young woman wearing a green dress, caught the jury’s attention as she took the stand. her name was Gerta henkel. on direct, she said she met Bruno hauptmann in 1932 at hunter island. They became friends, and hauptmann stopped by her place in the morning for coffee. she also said that she knew isidor Fisch. her husband boarded with him when he first came to the country.42 reilly finished his rather brief questioning by asking, “Was there anything at any time in mr. hauptmann’s conduct toward you ungentlemanly or dishonorable?” “Certainly not,” she replied. Wilentz chose to focus his questioning on the time Fisch and hauptmann met for the first time. henkel said she introduced hauptmann to Fisch at her home in the summer of 1932. she added that Fisch told her later that he had met hauptmann previously.43 Though her attractive appearance had caused a stir, her testimony really offered little to either side. as she walked past the defense table, she winked at the hauptmanns.44 it was nearly the end of the twenty-sixth day of the “trial of the century” when mr. pope called erastus mead hudson to the stand. his testimony began with a detailed explanation of his silver nitrate method before moving to the case at hand. on march 11, 1932, ten days after the kidnapping, hudson was invited by the state police to the lindbergh estate to see if he could lift any prints from the crime scene.45 hudson, along with trooper Kelly and sergeant Kubler, sprayed the entire kidnapper’s ladder with silver nitrate and placed it in the sunlight. The process took three or four days. in addition to causing the wood of the ladder to darken slightly, the process revealed nearly five hundred fingerprints and fingerprint fragments.46 pope spent the next ten or fifteen minutes trying, over the repeated objections of david Wilentz, to get hudson to state that if hauptmann had built the ladder, his fingerprints would necessarily be on the ladder. hudson replied that if a man built the ladder and kept it in a dry place, prints could last as long as six months.47 since the weather on the night of the kidnapping was cold and wet, this testimony lacked any real punch. pope asked the witness if he had examined the ladder other than just for fingerprint analysis. hudson replied that he had measured the ladder and examined each of the parts quite carefully, including rail sixteen. Then came the most shocking part of his entire testimony. hudson claimed that when he examined rail sixteen, he found only one nail hole made by a square nail.48 if there had been only one hole, then who put the other three there? Koehler? The state police? This was something Wilentz would have to refute during crossexamination, otherwise his case would crumble quickly. his questioning would have to wait because the hour was late. Judge trenchard gaveled the session to a close. The trial resumed Thursday morning, and david Wilentz rose to question mr. hudson. he asked the witness several times if he was certain about his claim of seeing

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 300 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

only one nail hole from a square nail. hudson said he was sure. interestingly, none of the notes taken by dr. hudson made any reference to the nail holes.49 Wilentz produced a photograph of rail sixteen taken in march 1932. The picture clearly showed four square nail holes exactly as Koehler described. after giving hudson a moment to review the picture, Wilentz asked the man if he was mistaken in his earlier testimony about the rail. hudson replied, “Well, under your premise, i would say yes.”50 Wilentz turned his attack to the fingerprints. he forced hudson to concede that prints could have been destroyed by the time he saw the ladder due to repeated handling. he also admitted that many of the prints he found could have been there prior to or even after march 1, 1932.51 hudson was asked if he obtained any prints from the windowsill or the baby’s crib. he stated that both had a painted surface, and his method of recovering prints would not work. he added, “Fingerprints don’t soak into a painted surface.”52 Though the defense did ask more questions of the witness, they could not save his testimony. What had looked like extremely persuasive testimony on Wednesday afternoon was turned to rubbish after cross-examination by the attorney general on Thursday. time was running out for the defense. most of their witnesses had been discredited, and they had not been able to offer anything to refute the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. Consequently, reilly and his associates made the decision to attack one of the weakest portions of the state’s case, i.e., the identification made by millard Whited. They started by calling William Whithead to the stand. Whithead testified that he knew millard Whited for many years. he considered him to be a dishonest man.53 Wilentz questioned him only briefly, revealing that he had once served time in jail.54 The next witness, George e. Z. lenz, testified similarly. like Whithead, he knew millard Whited and considered him a liar. during questioning by the attorney general, the jury learned that lenz and Whited had a personal dispute about a shipment of lumber. Whited had apparently refused to pay because he thought the wood was stolen.55 The final witness in the barrage against millard Whited was William diehl. like the previous two witnesses, diehl was asked about Whited’s reputation for telling the truth. diehl answered, “tain’t any good.”56 since diehl had testified at the extradition hearing in new york, Wilentz tried to use that testimony against him. it did not do very much to discredit the witness. Frankly, he did not need to aggressively question the man. millard Whited was an extremely minor witness considering the strength of the rest of the case. The next witness was augusta hile, the mother-in-law of Gerta henkel. she testified that she lent isidor Fisch a total of $4,350 for his pie-baking company.57 Wilentz offered little resistance to this witness because her testimony offered nothing.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Defense Rests

--

/355348t

| 301 |

The next witness, Karl henkel, testified that he never saw or even suspected anything improper between his wife and hauptmann.58 The defense wanted to refute any insinuation that hauptmann and Gerta henkel were romantically involved. Though Wilentz had improperly suggested such a relationship, it was not necessary for the defense to refute it. Wilentz made them pay for this mistake during cross-examination. Karl henkel contradicted his wife by saying that he had introduced hauptmann and isidor Fisch. Gerta testified just the day before that she was the one who introduced them. henry uhlig, isidor Fisch’s best friend, followed henkel to the stand and testified that he lent his friend $400 for the pie-baking venture. according to uhlig, this money was used not for pie-baking, but for passage to europe.59 uhlig traveled to Germany with Fisch and stayed with him until he died. returning to the united states, he asked hauptmann for any of Fisch’s personal belongings. hauptmann showed him the two suitcases, but never mentioned a shoebox.60 reilly tried repeatedly to get the witness to say that the handwriting on one of the envelopes sent to lindbergh was similar to Fisch’s handwriting. Wilentz objected repeatedly, but uhlig ended the argument by saying that he did not know one way or the other.61 The next witness was a painter from the Bronx named Walter manley. he stated that he was at Fredericksen’s Bakery at a quarter past seven on the night of the kidnapping. While there, he saw mrs. hauptmann working and her husband sipping coffee.62 Wilentz questioned the man briefly. manley was well acquainted with mrs. hauptmann, but had not known her husband prior to seeing him in the bakery. exactly how he knew the man sipping coffee was anna’s husband was not made clear. additionally, manley admitted that, prior to his testimony, he never told the police, newspapers, or anyone else about seeing hauptmann.63 The strongest part of the case against hauptmann was the wood evidence. The next three witnesses called by the defense would try to challenge that evidence. The first witness in this area was stanley seal. describing himself as a pattern maker, seal testified that he worked with hand tools, including hand planes. at the request of attorney pope, seal used a hand plane on two different surfaces and tried to show that one plane could leave different markings on the wood.64 There were problems with this testimony. First, seal did not know whether one could identify marks left by a specific plane.65 This statement showed seal to be anything but an expert. secondly, after using hauptmann’s plane, seal admitted that the nicks in the blade left identifiable markings on the wood, an admission that clearly supported Koehler’s testimony.66 hugh orr was the next so-called wood expert offered by the defense. his testimony ended up being even worse than seal’s. orr was offered as an expert in the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 302 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

area of wood and physics. after questioning by the attorney general, orr admitted, “no, i wouldn’t want to call myself an expert.”67 The final defense witness on the wood evidence was Charles de Bisschop, a general contractor from Connecticut. The defense tried to demonstrate that de Bisschop was an expert on wood. When Wilentz challenged these credentials, the judge refused to declare him a wood expert, but did allow him to testify as a “practical lumberman.”68 de Bisschop reported that he had examined rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder, the attic board, and photographs of both boards. in his opinion, the ladder rail and attic board came from two different pieces of lumber. he started to explain his conclusion and then suddenly looked at arthur Koehler, who was seated at the prosecution’s table, and asked, “This is the way it is supposed to be matched, isn’t it? is that the way they are supposed to be matched? Which is the top? Which is the top here?” “Just a minute,” Wilentz interrupted, “he wants to know—are you asking mr. Koehler which is the top?” “yes,” answered the witness. Judge trenchard admonished the witness, saying, “The witness ought not to ask questions. he ought to answer questions.”69 By this point, it was obvious that the witness was not an expert on wood and actually had no idea what he was talking about. after more equally unimpressive answers, the judge recessed for the day. The next morning, de Bisschop continued his testimony. pope handed the witness the board taken from hauptmann’s attic and asked if the board could have been removed from the attic. de Bisschop insisted that the board could not have been part of the flooring of the attic because removal of the board from the joists would have left a mark or scar on the wood.70 david Wilentz started his questioning by handing the witness a nail and asking whether or not the witness could tell if the nail had been used either in the ladder or on the floor board in the defendant’s attic. de Bisschop replied, “That nail never was.” “This nail never was in either one?” Wilentz repeated. “not that nail,” the witness insisted. “Why do you say this one wasn’t?” Wilentz continued. “Because there is no marks. it is an impossibility to take a nail out of lumber in as straight a condition as that,” de Bisschop insisted.71 Wilentz revealed that the nail presented to de Bisschop was actually one of the four nails taken from the attic board.72 Though cross-examination continued for a while longer, it really did not matter. The jury and everyone in the courthouse knew that de Bisschop had been embarrassed and his credibility destroyed. This was a major blow to the defense. They hoped to discredit the wood evidence, but all three of their witnesses were totally destroyed. They had one more witness on the wood evidence, but decided to call William Brevoort Bolmer first.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Defense Rests

--

/355348t

| 303 |

Bolmer told the jury that he ran a service station near hopewell, new Jersey. on march 1, 1932, at around 1:15 a.m., a dark green Ford drove into his station with a ladder strapped to the side. The driver was a man and the passenger a female. Bolmer said he could recognize the driver if he saw him again. after hauptmann was asked to stand, Bolmer said he was not the man. he also identified the kidnapper’s ladder as the one he saw.73 Wilentz did not ask many questions of the witness. he made sure the jury heard him when he objected to the judge, saying, “They have already proven by their witness, if your honor please, that the car at a later time near the lindbergh place was a dodge with a ladder in it, and that the man resembled hauptmann. That is their proof by their witness.”74 The objection was not granted, but Wilentz had made his point to the jury. he used the testimony of sebastian Benjamin lupica, a defense witness, to make Bolmer’s testimony seem irrelevant and unimportant. The final witness for the defense was ewald mielk, who owned a mill working plant in long island. he claimed to have experience matching grains of wood for paneling. The witness said that he examined the attic board and rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder and did not think that the two boards matched. he went on to testify that he had examined the two pieces of wood for only about five minutes.75 also, mielk admitted that he had not made a close enough inspection to comment on the grains of the wood.76 When mr. mielk left the witness stand, attorney reilly addressed the court somewhat meekly, “The defense rests.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 304 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 35 |

rebuttal and summations

in a criminal trial, the prosecution always goes first because the burden of proof rests squarely upon them. a defendant has no obligation to offer any evidence, but has the absolute right to do so. if a defendant chooses to offer evidence in defense, the prosecution is then entitled to contest that evidence. ed reilly and his associates spent twelve days offering witnesses and evidence. david Wilentz used the time to gather rebuttal witnesses. his rebuttal consisted of twenty-three witnesses called in rapid-fire succession over two days.1 The first target of his rebuttal was Benjamin heier. heier testified that he saw isidor Fisch jump over the wall at st. raymond’s Cemetery on the night of april 2, 1932. if true, then Fisch, not hauptmann, was Cemetery John. Wilentz called Joseph Farber, an insurance broker, as his first rebuttal witness. he testified that he had been involved in a car accident on april 2, 1932, on sixth avenue in manhattan, some eight to nine miles away from st. raymond’s Cemetery. The driver of the other car was none other than Benjamin heier.2 since the accident took place around 10:00 p.m., heier could not have seen anyone jumping the cemetery wall as he was nowhere near the area. a little over a month later, on march 22, 1935, heier was indicted by the hunterdon County grand jury for perjury. heier was represented by lloyd Fisher and eventually obtained a dismissal because the law at that time required a second witness. The second witness did not appear in court and the charges were dropped. With heier discredited, Wilentz turned his attention to elvert Carlstrom and his claim that he saw Bruno richard hauptmann in Fredericksen’s Bakery at around 8:30 p.m. on the night of the kidnapping. The attorney general called arthur larsen and oscar hilbert Christensen, who both stated that elvert Carlstrom was not at the bakery that night. instead, he was working with them in dunellen, new Jersey, and remained there all evening.3 The next three rebuttal witnesses dealt with the kidnapper’s ladder. erastus mead hudson had shocked the court with his claim that rail sixteen had only one nail hole made with a square nail. Wilentz impeached this testimony with a photo| 304 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Rebuttal and Summations

--

/355348t

| 305 |

graph purportedly taken in the days after the kidnapping that showed four holes in rail sixteen. now it was time to back up that claim. George C. Wilton, a photographer with the new Jersey state police, told the jury that he developed the picture of rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder on march 8, 1932. reilly cross-examined the man harshly, but could not shake his testimony. Wilton even had records with him showing the date of development.4 Wilentz was not finished rebutting the testimony of mr. hudson. he presented harold s. Betts, an employee of the united states Forestry service, who testified that he examined the kidnapper’s ladder on may 23, 1932. he issued a written report on June 1, 1932, in which he recorded observing four holes in rail sixteen.5 The next target for rebuttal was isidor Fisch. The defense had spent considerable time and energy trying to convince the jury that Fisch was the real kidnapper and blackmailer. one of their witnesses, Bertha hoff, advised the court that her friend, alfred Budreau, brought isidor Fisch to her house in november 1933. Fisch had a small package with him. Wilentz produced mr. Budreau, who denied even knowing Fisch, let alone bringing him to hoff ’s home.6 The next three witnesses, Joseph levenson, erna Jung, and henry Jung, could account for the whereabouts of isidor Fisch on the night of the kidnapping. Fisch was at the home of henry and erna Jung on march 1, 1932, from 7:30 p.m. to nearly midnight.7 levenson even had some documents, including a promissory note, to confirm Fisch’s presence.8 hanna Fisch, isidor’s sister, was next. demonstrating that he would go to any length to prove his case, Wilentz had hanna flown in from Germany. testifying through a German interpreter,9 hanna recounted her final days with her brother, from his return to Germany in 1933 to his hospitalization in march 1934 and finally to his death. asked about the estate, hanna told the court her brother had little of value.10 reilly stood for cross-examination and asked the witness, “Verstehen sie englisch?”11 Before hanna could reply, Wilentz objected, “i am at a disadvantage if mr. reilly is going to speak in German, please.”12 The balance of the questioning was done in english. reilly kept trying to get the woman to inflate the value of her brother’s estate. Though she admitted that isidor had sent small amounts of money home over the years, it never really amounted to much.13 Wilentz had one more witness to testify about Fisch; however, he decided to call John o’ryan, the new york police commissioner, instead. ryan was called to rebut the claims of hauptmann that he had revealed the location of the money before the police found it. “no, that is not correct,” ryan offered, “The money had been found before he told me about where the money could be found.”14 ryan was followed to the stand by isidor Fisch’s new york landlady, selma Kohl.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 306 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

she told the jury that Fisch rented her cheapest room from april 1932 to december 1933. his rent was $3.50 per week, and he left few possessions behind.15 lou harding had testified for the defense, saying that he saw two men in a car with a ladder on the night of the kidnapping. Wilentz called William Konietzko, a police officer of princeton township, who revealed that he had brought harding to the lindbergh estate to be questioned. harding did talk about two men in a car, but never mentioned a ladder.16 Judge trenchard wanted to finish the trial before the weekend, but realized the lateness of the hour. he called an end to the Friday session and announced that, in an effort to move the case along, court would be held on saturday. on saturday morning, the first thing observers noticed was that anne lindbergh was back in the courtroom. she was seated next to her husband, and many thought she might testify again. in reality, she was there because her mother was to testify as the final rebuttal witness. Wilentz called lewis Bornmann and arthur Koehler back to the witness stand. They repeated their testimony about the ladder and attic board and completely refuted de Bisschop and the other defense witnesses.17 after Bornmann and Koehler, the attorney general called leo singer to rebut the testimony of louis Kiss. Kiss testified that he saw the defendant at Fredericksen’s Bakery and then later delivered two pints of rum to leo singer. singer countered that he had not received rum from mr. Kiss and had not even seen him that night.18 Wilentz was not able to prove that Kiss had not seen hauptmann at the bakery. he could disprove the story of delivering rum to leo singer. he thus labeled louis Kiss a liar without actually dealing with the most important part of his testimony. at this point of the rebuttal, Wilentz had revealed the whereabouts of isidor Fisch on the night of the kidnapping. now it was time to prove once and for all that Fisch was not at st. raymond’s Cemetery the night the ransom was paid. to accomplish this, Wilentz called ottilia hoerber to the stand. hoerber testified that on april 2, 1932, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., isidor Fisch was at her home discussing business. she offered documents to back her claim.19 suddenly Fisch was becoming a poor suspect indeed. There was one more person to be accounted for: Violet sharp. The defense had offered two witnesses placing sharp in a restaurant in yonkers and on a trolley in manhattan during the day of march 1, 1932.20 in her statements to the police, Violet sharp had contradicted herself regarding her whereabouts on the night of the kidnapping. With her suicide, it was now impossible to hear from her. Wilentz did the next best thing and called the three people who were with Violet that night. ernest miller testified that he had a date with sharp that night. he and another couple (Catherine minners and elmer Johnson) picked up Violet around 8:00 p.m.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Rebuttal and Summations

--

/355348t

| 307 |

and went to the orangeburg peanut Grill. They brought her home around eleven.21 Catherine minners and elmer Johnson corroborated miller’s testimony.22 it was clear to everyone that Violet sharp was not in new york that night. Wilentz decided to drive home the point. he called the night watchman of the morrow estate, George marshall, who testified that Violet had left the estate around eight, returning around eleven.23 Finally, Wilentz called his last witness, elizabeth morrow, the mother of anne lindbergh. she was rather frail and required assistance getting to the witness stand. once there, she told the jury that Violet sharp served her dinner at around 7:00 p.m. on the night of the crime. she did not see her again until after eleven.24 reilly did an extremely brief cross-examination. he was very careful to treat the lady with great respect. she was not only an elderly lady, but also the widow of a former united states ambassador. after a few questions, reilly politely addressed the witness, saying, “i think that is all, mrs. morrow.”25 When mrs. morrow stepped down, david Wilentz announced that he was finished with his rebuttal case. reilly replied that he was finished as well. Judge trenchard called the special saturday session in the hopes of completing the entire trial. his experience as a trial court judge told him this would not be possible. Both sides would need time to prepare summations. he therefore adjourned the case until monday morning. Wilentz and reilly would have the balance of the weekend to prepare themselves. The weekend would not be without its share of drama. during a visit with hauptmann, the accused announced that he wanted lloyd Fisher to give the closing. he felt that Fisher was from new Jersey and would have a better rapport with the jury. reilly put a stop to that by bluntly telling hauptmann that he had been giving closing arguments since before lloyd Fisher’s birth. he was lead counsel, and he would give the summation. hauptmann’s reasoning was sound. Though it is unlikely that it would have changed the result, lloyd Fisher was the better choice. This is not to say that reilly was not a skilled attorney. rather, this was a question of style and presentation. reilly always dressed to the nines and came across as a stuffy lawyer from the big city. Fisher was a local attorney and a member of the community. he had a much better understanding of the way people in hunterdon County thought and perceived the world. From reilly’s perspective, one can appreciate why he denied the request. This was the trial of the century. The entire world was watching. to sit idly by while an underling gave the closing argument was out of the question. at this point in reilly’s career, there would be fewer big cases and certainly none as significant. Though reilly’s ego would not let him see hauptmann’s point, it is not difficult to understand his thinking. an attorney should not allow his ego to alter his judgment, but attorneys are subject to human frailty just like everyone else.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 308 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

When court resumed on monday morning, it was mr. rosencrans who addressed the judge first. “if the Court please,” he began, “the defense requests that the [state] open shortly upon the points upon which they intend to rely for conviction.”26 normally, in a criminal trial, the defense gives its summation first and the prosecution offers its closing in reply. Jurisprudence in new Jersey at that time was slightly different, giving the defense the option to defer until the state offered a brief summation of the facts. once done, the trial would continue with the defense’s closing and then a formal and more detailed summation for the prosecution. Because it was common practice for defense attorneys to make such a demand, the prosecution was prepared. assistant district attorney anthony hauck would give the summation, and attorney General Wilentz would give the second summation. hauck’s presentation to the jury was relatively brief and to the point. Though he set forth a solid case, he did so without any emotion. he carefully described the evidence and the charges against the accused. after what was by all accounts an excellent statement of facts, hauck finished by saying, “remember, we are not required to have a picture of the man coming down the ladder with the lindbergh baby; but we have shown you conclusively, overwhelmingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bruno richard hauptmann is guilty of the murder of Charles a. lindbergh, Jr. Thank you.”27 When hauck was finished, Judge trenchard announced a brief recess. Fifteen minutes later, court resumed, and ed reilly walked slowly toward the jury. he was magnificently dressed as always, but was not wearing his usual carnation. some have speculated that this may have been a deliberate act to connect with the jury.28 after acknowledging the judge and opposing counsel, reilly addressed the jury. “i wish to give you a text from st. matthew, ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged,’ and ask of you in consideration of this case that you bring into your hearts and into your consciences the feeling that you are weighing that which you cannot give back, if you take away— life.”29 “you are faced with a very, very difficult task,” reilly continued, “The responsibility, yes, is on your shoulders. But you are big enough, and you are american enough to be honest, and despite the position and the prestige and the wealth of the distinguished family who find themselves in the position here of being bereaved, the scales of justice under that flag which is over your heads will bring to your minds the realization that despite the fact this carpenter from Germany is on trial, our Constitution and our laws and our justice and our decency and your honesty will compel the great state of new Jersey to prove this case not according to the theories of the prosecution, but according to the law of this state and the law of every state of our union.”30 it was clear from the opening comments that reilly intended to speak at length and with emotion.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Rebuttal and Summations

--

/355348t

| 309 |

reilly told the jury that it would only be natural, after hearing mr. hauck, to conclude that the defendant had to prove his innocence. The law, however, placed no burden on the defendant. This is standard language for any defense closing. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and defense attorneys will typically mention this to the jury at least four times in the first five minutes of a summation. When he had finished reminding the jury about the law and the burden of proof, reilly launched into his argument. “so, i say at the very beginning that this is the crime of the century and it is the worst crime and the lowest type of crime ever committed, to my knowledge, or according to any of the books i have read. But, it is not the defendant who is guilty of it.”31 reilly moved to what he considered a flaw in the logic of the state, saying, “now, they would have you in one breath believe that this man, hauptmann, was a master mind, that he planned this himself and the next minute, they would have you believe that he was the worst fool in the world.”32 as an example, reilly pointed out the prosecution’s theory that hauptmann wore gloves when he committed the crime, yet sat with John Condon for nearly an hour without covering his face. after a few more minutes of similar examples, reilly reached the major point of his speech. he intended to convince the jury that the crime of the century was an inside job. “Colonel lindbergh was stabbed in the back by the disloyalty of those who worked for him, and despite the fact that he courageously believes that there is no disloyalty in the servant’s quarters, i say now that no one could get into that house unless the information was supplied by those who worked for Colonel lindbergh.”33 reilly began to put together a series of allegations and conspiracy theories. The first culprit was Betty Gow. “now,” reilly bellowed, “the Colonel can have all the confidence in the world he pleases in Betty Gow. i have none.”34 as far he was concerned, Betty Gow conspired with others to steal the child. how else could the baby have been taken without him crying out? Who else knew the child would be in hopewell on a tuesday? reilly accused Betty Gow of delivering the child to one of her accomplices. she was the last person to see the child before the kidnapping. she had the knowledge necessary for an inside job. reilly was showing the world his ability to proclaim a man’s innocence despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Betty was not the only staff member to be charged. The lindbergh’s dog did not bark when the child was taken. “Who controlled the dog’s movements that night?” reilly demanded. he immediately answered, “The butler.”35 reilly pressed the point further. “i don’t know anything about these people, but i say the circumstances point absolutely along a straight line of guilt toward that butler and the servants who were disloyal to Colonel lindbergh.”36 The butler, olly Whateley, was perhaps the perfect person to accuse. he was dead and could not respond.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 310 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

reilly hammered his point home that the crime could not have been the work of one man. it had to be an inside job. “a man can’t come up to a strange house with a ladder and stock it up against a wall and run up the ladder, push open a shutter, and walk into a room that he has never been in before,” reilly thundered. “That is what they would have you believe.”37 reilly offered a different theory of the case. “remember the evidence of the officer who found the ladder, the picture of the mud, the ladder over in the bushes, fifty to seventy-five feet away from the house, and not a footprint between the house and the ladder. now, you can’t walk in mud without leaving footprints.” he pounded his fist on the defense table and repeated loudly, “not a footprint between the house and the ladder!”38 “i say the ladder was a plant,” reilly announced, “That ladder was never up against the side of that house that night.”39 Knowing that his wood experts had failed to contradict Koehler, reilly was attempting to set the kidnapper’s ladder aside as a plant either by the kidnappers or by the police. With a dramatic crescendo, reilly shouted, “oh, it was so well planned by disloyal people, so well planned.”40 now it was time to offer some details about the great conspiracy. over the next few minutes, reilly set forth the following scenario. While Whateley kept the dog busy and Betty Gow and mrs. Whateley were examining a dress, someone known to the child entered the house. Though reilly never identified the person, he simply announced it was one of the servants from the morrow estate. The mystery servant had the child, but could not leave until the lindberghs were occupied and out of the way. The all-clear signal was the phone call from red Johnson, who was also part of the scheme. reilly never explained to the jury exactly how red Johnson was informed by the other servants that the coast was clear. nevertheless, when the traitorous servant in the baby’s room heard the phone call, he or she snuck the baby down the stairs and out the door.41 once the crime was committed, one of the servants wiped the nursery clean of fingerprints.42 as proof of this theory, reilly asked the jury to consider that the state paid a great deal of money to bring hanna Fisch from Germany, but was unwilling to get red Johnson from denmark. reilly argued that the state intentionally kept red Johnson away from the country to prevent the truth from being revealed. The lindberghs’ servants were not the only people reilly blamed and ridiculed. The state police were also an excellent target. he accused them of mishandling evidence, contaminating the crime scene, and bungling the investigation.43 here, reilly had a point. The state police and the local officers did not do a good job securing the scene of the crime. reporters and police officers trudged all over the property, likely destroying footprints. many of these same men examined the ladder with bare hands, making it difficult to get clear fingerprints. defense attor-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Rebuttal and Summations

--

/355348t

| 311 |

neys almost always accuse the police of wrongdoing or incompetence. in this case, reilly had support behind his charge. “i don’t know what was behind this kidnapping,” reilly continued, “whether it was for greed or for gain, for spite or hate or vengeance. and, my God, it couldn’t have been planned by any one person. it could not have been planned by one. it had to be planned by a group.”44 increasing his volume, reilly bellowed, “But the state stands here and says ‘Kill hauptmann. Close the pages. let everyone else sink into oblivion and security. Kill the German carpenter.’ The mob wants the German carpenter killed, as mobs for the past two thousand years have cried for the death of a person under hysteria, when afterwards it was discovered that the person that was killed by the mob’s vengeance wasn’t guilty at all. Circumstantial evidence is no evidence. you can’t bring back life.”45 Though his speech was flamboyant and dramatic, reilly was subtly signaling to the jury to consider mercy as opposed to an outright acquittal. in essence, he was saying that even if you thought his client was guilty, you could never be sure. once executed, the truth would be of no use to the accused. he could not make the request directly because hauptmann was proclaiming himself an innocent man, but he could plant the seeds in the minds of the jurors. after a few more minutes of emotional rhetoric, reilly caught the eyes of Judge trenchard, who seemed to be waiting for the right moment to interject. Without missing a beat, reilly said to the jury, “i shall ask his honor if i may now stop for lunch.”46 Judge trenchard granted the request and advised that court would resume in forty-five minutes. after lunch, reilly resumed his summation. his tone was quiet, serious, and completely different than his presentation during the morning session. some have concluded from this that reilly had three or four drinks during lunch and was intoxicated.47 There is no question that reilly was seen at bars during the evenings and drank heavily. There is nothing more than anecdotal evidence that he was inebriated or impaired during the trial itself.48 reilly’s first topic for the afternoon was the handwriting evidence. “it is not my intention to take the handwriting of each and every one of these experts,” reilly began. “expert evidence, his honor will charge you, i believe, is nothing more nor less than opinion evidence.”49 after telling the jury to disregard the handwriting experts, reilly took the time to describe the defense expert, John trendley, as “honest” and noted that he had volunteered his service in the interests of justice, while the state’s handwriting experts appeared at trial in exchange for a fee.50 The next subject for attack was John “Jafsie” Condon. it was essential that he be

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 312 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

discredited because he positively identified hauptmann in court as Cemetery John. to be fair, reilly did an admirable job. Condon had told the jury he became involved in the lindbergh case to clear red Johnson, a man he felt was innocent. Why, reilly asked, would Condon help some sailor he had never met? how was it that Condon knew about red’s phone call to Betty Gow on the night of the kidnapping? Was there some connection, alliance, or conspiracy between the two of them?51 reilly pointed out the unlikely odds that Condon would place a letter in a small publication like the Bronx Home News and get a response practically overnight. This was, according to reilly, a “signal” from Condon to red Johnson and Betty Gow.52 For nearly ten minutes more, reilly berated Jafsie and ridiculed his testimony and motives. leaving the subject of dr. Condon, reilly discussed lindbergh’s identification of hauptmann’s voice. he needed to be careful here. lindbergh was the most famous man in the world and was a grieving father. reilly had to discredit the identification without being too harsh on the famous aviator. reilly announced that while he would not challenge the veracity or integrity of Colonel lindbergh, he did feel that lindbergh must have been mistaken. “But, Colonel,” reilly said in his most respectful tone, “i say to you, it is impossible that you, having lived for years in airplanes, with the hum of the motor in your ears for years, with the noise of the motor and the change of climatic conditions that you have lived under since you made your wonderful flight, to say with any degree of stability that you can ever remember the voice of a man two and a half or three years afterwards, a voice you never heard before and never heard since.”53 reilly quickly moved on. he had made his point without insulting or disrespecting the lone eagle. There was no sense in pressing his luck. it was time to return to the vast conspiracy. reilly identified Violet sharp as the next member of the plot against Colonel lindbergh. Why had she killed herself, reilly wondered aloud, before answering his own question, saying, “But, the net was closing in.”54 later, he added that Violet sharp committed suicide “because in her guilty heart and conscience, she knew what she did.”55 reilly never did say specifically what Violet’s role was, but the impression was that she was the one who took the child down the steps and out of the house. he had now put together a net of intrigue against the lindbergh family. The perpetrators of this crime, according to reilly, were John Condon, Violet sharp, Betty Gow, oliver and elsie Whateley, isidor Fisch, and red Johnson. The roles and motives of these seven conspirators were not revealed by reilly. it was clear to most observers in the courtroom that reilly had lost the jury’s attention. if he had accused one or two people of complicity, people might have accepted the theory. once he got to seven people, it became too far-fetched. Four of the seven accused were servants of the morrows or lindberghs. one disloyal ser-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Rebuttal and Summations

--

/355348t

| 313 |

vant might have been believable, but four, including the entire staff at the sourland estate, was just too much. after another fifteen minutes of accusations and finger-pointing, reilly started to conclude his remarks. “i believe this man is absolutely innocent of murder,” he roared. Then, suddenly dropping his voice to a somber tone and looking directly at Colonel lindbergh, he continued, “may i say to him, in passing, that he has my profound respect and i feel sorry for him in his deep grief, and i am quite sure that all of you agree with me, his lovely son is now within the gates of heaven.”56 With a slight bow to the jury, reilly returned to the defense table. he had spoken for the entire morning and afternoon session. Though he had made some good points on the evidence, they were overshadowed by his theatrics and conspiracy theories. Because reilly had taken so much time, Judge trenchard called a recess until ten o’clock the next morning. Wilentz would now have extra time to prepare his final thoughts for the jury.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 314 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 36 |

Wilentz Closes

The following morning, more people than ever crowded into the courtroom. some concluded that this was because david Wilentz was giving his closing argument, while others thought it was because it was a holiday, lincoln’s birthday.1 Whatever the reason, the courtroom was packed beyond its limits. Wilentz was ready for his big moment. he was dressed in a dark blue doublebreasted suit with a striped blue tie and a handkerchief in the breast pocket. his shirt was bright white with a high collar. his hair was dark and slicked back. he looked dignified and very serious. When ed reilly started his closing, he cited scripture from st. matthew. Wilentz wasted little time responding. holding a bible, he approached the jury and said, “‘Judge not, lest ye be judged,’ my adversary says, but forgets the other biblical admonition, ‘and he that killeth any man shall surely be killed, shall surely be put to death.’”2 placing the bible on the table, Wilentz continued, “For all these months since october, 1934, not during any moment has there been anything that has come to surface or light that has indicated anything but the guilt of this defendant, Bruno richard hauptmann, and no one else. every avenue of evidence, every little thoroughfare that we traveled along, every one leads to the same door, Bruno richard hauptmann.”3 This was a dramatic, albeit factually inaccurate, beginning. almost all of the evidence collected pointed to hauptmann, but at least one significant piece, the signature of J. J. Faulkner, did not. even to this day, the identity of J. J. Faulkner remains a mystery.4 notwithstanding this error, Wilentz continued his assault on hauptmann. “now, what type of man,” the prosecutor firmly asserted, “what type of man, would kill the child of Colonel lindbergh and anne morrow? he wouldn’t be an american. no american gangster and no american racketeer ever sank to the level of killing babies.”5 pointing his finger directly at hauptmann, Wilentz thundered, “oh, no, it had to be a fellow that had ice water in his veins, not blood. That is the first thing. it had to be | 314 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Wilentz Closes

--

/355348t

| 315 |

a fellow who had a peculiar mental makeup, who thought he was bigger than lindy, that when the news of the crime came out he could look at the headlines screaming across the page just as headlines screamed across the page when lindy made that famous flight.”6 a man who would commit this crime was “an egomaniac, who thought he was omnipotent,” Wilentz continued, telling the jury that such a man would be secretive and the kind of person who kept the truth from his wife.7 he would be the kind of person who would undergo hardship, such as making three attempts to stow away on a boat to illegally enter the country. he would be the kind of man who would burglarize the home of a mayor in Germany by entering the second story using a ladder. it would be a man who pointed a gun at women pushing baby carriages.8 The person who committed this crime would be “an animal lower than the lowest form in the animal kingdom, public enemy number one of this world, Bruno richard hauptmann. We have found him and he is here for your judgment.”9 Wilentz was using the criminal background of the defendant and pieces of testimony to try to convince the jury that only a person of hauptmann’s character would commit such a crime. Though this type of argument may have been common in 1935, it is not permitted today. a prosecutor making such comments before a jury would almost certainly have any conviction overturned. The summation is supposed to be based upon the evidence and not the opinions of the prosecutor on the character of the defendant. some have suggested a more sinister intent behind the prosecutor’s words. The trial took place between the two world wars. This was a time when anti-German sentiment ran strong. many believe that Wilentz was using racial bigotry against hauptmann. in fact, sir ludovic Kennedy goes so far as to suggest that Wilentz saw himself as the “standard-bearer for persecuted German Jewry with hauptmann (the former machine-gunner) personifying nazi brutality and arrogance.”10 The comment, “he wouldn’t be an american,” was certainly improper, but does not quite reach the grandiose level of perverted racism suggested by Kennedy. likely Wilentz was referring to hauptmann’s status as an illegal immigrant. if Wilentz was tapping into anti-German sentiments, he was being quite foolish because several jurors were of German descent. perhaps Wilentz anticipated this response because he quickly began pointing out that many of the prosecution’s witnesses were of German descent, such as Colonel schwartzkopf and inspector Bruckman.11 he also took umbrage at ed reilly’s remark that the state’s case was “not on the level.” to combat this remark, Wilentz spent the next ten minutes bolstering the credibility of his witnesses by setting forth their credentials and then asking the jury whether they could possibly consider someone with those credentials to be a crook.12 Wilentz turned his remarks to the handwriting evidence. Though numerous handwriting experts were presented by the prosecution, Wilentz focused on the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 316 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

most famous of his experts, albert s. osborn. “osborn has lived to be eighty,” Wilentz continued, “he has lived to be eighty years of age. he doesn’t know when he will have to answer the call of God and i don’t think he would take with him at this stage of life, i don’t think he would want to take with him the feeling that he sent a man to his death unless he was positive.”13 after reminding the jury that the state had produced numerous witnesses finding hauptmann to be the writer of the ransom notes, Wilentz pointed out that only one witness was presented by the defense on handwriting. previously, in the presence of the jury, reilly announced that the defense planned to call several handwriting experts. yet, when the time came, he presented only one. Wilentz told the jury that the other men “wouldn’t dare say it is not hauptmann, because, of course, they are hauptmann’s.”14 Wilentz was rather effectively taking advantage of a significant mistake that reilly had made. When an attorney conducts a jury trial, every effort is made to avoid making statements or promises to the jury that cannot be backed up. if a jury does not believe the advocate, they are unlikely to believe the client. reilly promised many handwriting witnesses, but offered only one. This undoubtedly hurt reilly’s credibility with the jury. Worse, it put Wilentz in a position where he really did not have to strenuously defend his experts. By insinuating that even the majority of defense experts would incriminate hauptmann, the issue was effectively won. to cement his advantage, Wilentz turned to the defense’s claim that they had little or no money to properly represent their client. The judge committed an error by allowing the defense to curry sympathy with claims of poverty. his error was compounded exponentially by allowing david Wilentz to exploit this issue. “They talk about the defense not having any money, handicapped for money. There is not one scintilla of evidence, there is not one word of evidence, there is not the slightest bit of proof that they haven’t money,” Wilentz charged. “i think they have got lots of money,” he continued, “That is my notion against their notion that they haven’t got money; money from cranks and idiots and fools, un-americans all over the country, pouring in enough money to hire what they consider the four best lawyers available, to get the best criminal lawyer in the east.”15 perhaps the only thing worse than Judge trenchard allowing this commentary was the fact that none of the defense attorneys ever objected. Without objections or admonitions from the judge, Wilentz just continued his assault. “What is there that would attract high-priced lawyers and famous lawyers to a man charged with the murder of the lindbergh child?” Wilentz asked. “Certainly, they don’t want to glory in the blood of the lindbergh baby. it must be because of their oath to their professional duty. it must be because of that and because they are paid to do the work.”16 Finished with this improper attack and while the defense attorneys sat on their hands, Wilentz moved on to the defense’s allegations against red Johnson and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Wilentz Closes

--

/355348t

| 317 |

Betty Gow. reilly had said that red Johnson was intentionally kept out of the country and away from the defense. Wilentz explained to the jury that the state did not bring red Johnson back for the trial because he had been investigated and cleared of wrongdoing.17 having explained away the defense attack against red Johnson, Wilentz turned to the defense’s charges against Betty Gow. in his summation, reilly accused Betty Gow of being part of the conspiracy. in his mind, she handed the child directly to the kidnapper. Wilentz responded to this by making inflammatory comments of his own. “mr. hauptmann wasn’t satisfied with murdering this child,” he roared, “Why, he wants to leave in the train and in the wreck the lives and reputations of all these people. it wasn’t enough to hasten the death of Violet sharp; everybody else had to be crushed. if they are not dead, they have to be crushed and Betty Gow is one of them.”18 in one fell swoop, Wilentz insinuated to the jury that hauptmann bore responsibility for the suicide of Violet sharp. The defense should have been on their feet screaming in protest. The official transcript shows that they did nothing but listen. Wilentz further defended Betty Gow by pointing out that she returned of her own accord from scotland to testify against hauptmann. she did not have to return, however, if she “had one scintilla of guilty knowledge.”19 truth be told, Wilentz needed her testimony and likely would have taken any action necessary to get her back in the country. Wilentz asked the jury to compare Gow’s willingness to return to new Jersey with hauptmann’s refusal to return without a legal fight. “We had to get a Governor’s Warrant of the state of new Jersey,” the prosecutor shouted, “We had to go over to the Governor of the state of new york. We had to then go before the supreme Court. We had to go to the appellate division.20 We had to go up and down the line to induce the gentleman who said he was innocent to come over here and prove it. how about that as compared with Betty Gow?”21 While an effective tool of persuasion, the prosecutor’s argument was improper and should have been the subject of a vigorous objection. under the Fifth amendment of the united states Constitution, a person being tried for a criminal offense may not be compelled to testify against himself. Furthermore, since a man is innocent until proven guilty, he has no obligation to prove his innocence; rather, the prosecution must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. likewise, the assertion of innocence and exercise of constitutional rights cannot be used by a prosecutor to allege or insinuate guilt. here, Wilentz was asking the jury to conclude that hauptmann was guilty because he opposed extradition and appealed the eventual order of extradition. he also suggested that hauptmann needed to prove his innocence. Both were improper and should have been challenged by the defense.22

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 318 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

having destroyed the defense’s attacks against Betty Gow, red Johnson, and other prosecution witnesses (albeit using improper arguments), Wilentz turned his attention to comments made about the missing footprint and the recording of Condon mimicking the kidnapper’s voice. to this day, no one has been able to find either the recording or the footprint. seemingly, they have been lost to history. They were present at the trial, however, as reference is made to them in the transcript. reilly was rather effective in his closing argument, insinuating that the state was hiding evidence that tended to exonerate hauptmann. Wilentz told the packed courthouse that the footprint was never offered to the jury because it was not admissible. The cast imprint was taken not by police, investigators, or evidence technicians, but instead by amateurs. it was also taken two or three days after the meeting with Cemetery John. nevertheless, Wilentz insisted that the footprint cast was available for the defense to use if they wanted.23 The footprint was indeed of limited evidentiary value. What is confusing is why neither side attempted to use it. if the footprint was not the same size as hauptmann’s foot, the defense could have tried to present it to the jury and argue that someone else must have been in the cemetery. Conversely, if the print was the same size, the prosecution could have argued that it was further circumstantial proof against hauptmann. assuming that Wilentz was telling the truth when he said the footprint cast was available to the defense, then the only logical conclusion is that both sides felt they could not successfully present the piece of evidence to the jury because it was not collected by legal authorities and was taken so long after the event that the print could have belonged to anyone. as for the recording of John Condon, it was also available for review by the defense. again, Wilentz claimed that it was not admissible in court, but told the jury he would have loved to have played it in court.24 The recording could have been kept out by the defense as improper bolstering of the witness. Wilentz should still have made the attempt to offer it. if the defense blocked its use, they would then have been unable to complain about it later. Furthermore, if the record contained anything contradicting Condon’s testimony, the defense could have used it to impeach his credibility. unfortunately, the recording itself is missing, and we will likely never know its actual contents. having disposed of the complaints regarding the footprint and the recording, Wilentz shifted his attention back to mr. and mrs. lindbergh’s staff. The defense went out of its way to allege that it was an inside job perpetrated by disloyal servants. Wilentz felt he needed to bolster their credibility to the jury. he did so by telling them that Betty Gow, Violet sharp, and all the servants of the lindberghs and morrows were thoroughly scrutinized by the new Jersey state police, united states Federal Bureau of investigation, and even scotland yard.25 This was improper since

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Wilentz Closes

--

/355348t

| 319 |

none of this ever made its way into evidence. he got away with it, though, because the defense never objected. to rebut allegations of a conspiracy, Wilentz offered the following: you know, i should love, if it were true, to be able to say to you that two or three people did this. it would be so much easier for me. i know just about, at least i hope i do, how the human mind operates in a situation like this. i know how difficult it is to believe that one person committed this crime. it makes it more difficult for the prosecution—not that it is important, because if fifty people did it, if hauptmann was one of them, that would be all there was to it. But, i would like to be able to show that, if it were so, if that were the fact. you see the trouble about it is that you are limited just like i am. We have to be bound by what we know, what the proof is, not what we might imagine, as reasonable people. every bit of evidence, every scintilla of evidence, every living person that knows anything about it, every living policeman, every government agent, every one of the constituted authorities finds himself in the same position, that all evidence leads to hauptmann, only to hauptmann.26

The attorney general cleverly embraced the idea of a conspiracy by saying he wished the evidence supported it. in so doing, he took the wind out of the defense’s sails. a conspiracy or an inside job was not a bad thing and was not something that would acquit the defendant, or so Wilentz alleged. it was a brilliant argument. Wilentz was not finished with his point. Though a conspiracy might have been “easier,” the attorney general was not about to concede one. Concerning Violet sharp, Wilentz asked the jury a series of questions. if she was one of the conspirators, then why did the crime occur at the sourland estate? Violet worked for the morrows in englewood. Would she not have arranged the crime closer to where she worked?27 about Betty Gow, Wilentz asked why she would have chosen march 1, 1932. she had multiple opportunities, including a time when she was alone with the child in maine. instead, the kidnapping took place on a day when she did not even know the lindberghs were going to be in hopewell. Why would she have chosen that date and time on such short notice?28 turning to the Whateleys, Wilentz pointed out to the jury that olly Whateley, like Violet sharp, was dead and unable to defend himself. Wilentz accused the defense of having no respect for the dead or for Whateley’s widow, whom, Wilentz stated, the defense attempted to shame.29 Wilentz further added that no ransom money had ever been found in the possession of or connected in any way to lindbergh’s servants. The handwriting on the notes resembled hauptmann’s writing, not any of the servants.’ no evidence at all pointed to the servants, only hauptmann.30

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 320 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

When he finished his points about the lindberghs’ servants, Wilentz noticed that it was nearly half past eleven. he had been talking nonstop for nearly an hour and a half. he politely asked for a recess. Judge trenchard complied. Thirteen minutes later, court resumed, and david Wilentz continued his verbal assault by discussing the murder, saying that there was no crime more serious. “let me tell you, men and women,” he continued, “that even that, the crime of murder, which [sic] shrink into absolute insignificance, this murder even of the lindbergh child would shrink into absolute insignificance in comparison to the crime that would be committed if this man were freed. That would be the crime of the century. to let him roam the streets of this country and make every woman in her home shudder again; that would be a real tragedy, an american tragedy.”31 after this inappropriately bombastic start, Wilentz described hauptmann as being educated in crime. he spoke of his illegal entry into the country after two failed attempts, as well as his crimes in Germany.32 Wilentz summed up his assessment of hauptmann’s past by saying, “he had a liberal education, as i said before, in crime.”33 all the while, hauptmann’s attorneys said nothing. during reilly’s summation, he insisted that anyone unfamiliar to the child would not have been able to enter the nursery without causing the child to cry out. Wilentz disagreed, saying, “Well, i don’t think that’s exactly a fair statement of fact. i think that a stranger could walk into a child’s room, a nursery, if the child were asleep, without awakening the child.”34 Then Wilentz offered perhaps the single most controversial statement in the entire trial. looking right at the jury, he said in an accusatory tone, “But let me tell you this: this fellow took no chance on the child awakening. he crushed that child right in the room into insensibility. he smothered and choked that child right in the room. That child never cried, never gave an outcry. Certainly not. The little voice was stilled right in that room.”35 in one fell swoop, Wilentz changed the entire theory of the case. until now, the state contended that Bruno richard hauptmann was guilty of felony murder in that he committed a burglary by unlawfully entering lindbergh’s home at night for the purpose of stealing the child’s bedclothes. during the course of the burglary, the child died. now david Wilentz was telling the jury that hauptmann committed premeditated murder right in the nursery. he even suggested the chisel as the murder weapon.36 This was a stunning reversal trumped only by the fact that none of the defense attorneys objected. While Wilentz considered this statement “a fair inference,”37 there is no evidence proving that Bruno richard hauptmann planned to kill the child from the very beginning or that he actually killed the child in the nursery. all of the evidence shows that the child was either killed accidentally or, if done deliberately, not in the nursery itself. There is some evidence to show that the child was handled roughly, but not actually killed in the nursery.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Wilentz Closes

--

/355348t

| 321 |

as the impact of his accusation was still being felt, Wilentz pointed at hauptmann. “take a look at him as he sits there,” Wilentz said ominously, “look at him as he walks out of the room, panther-like, gloating, feeling good.”38 Though edgar rosencrans continued to take notes, no objections were made to the court. taking a breath and changing his tone, Wilentz spoke of defense allegations against the credibility of Jafsie Condon, contending that he was suspicious because he always acted alone. Wilentz argued that Condon was almost never alone. he was with lindbergh or Breckinridge all the time. The only time he was alone was when he met directly with the kidnapper. Wilentz defended this rather eloquently, saying, “now, when kidnappers and murderers want to negotiate for money, they don’t come down to the Flemington Courthouse before a jury and a judge. They don’t go to a theater and say, ‘i am the kidnapper, i am the murderer, where is dr. Condon? i want to deal with him.’ They pick out some quiet place, a cemetery—very appropriate by hauptmann anyway.”39 turning to claims of a conspiracy by the state, Wilentz said mockingly, “has everybody suddenly conspired? The state of new Jersey, the agents of the state of new york, Colonel lindbergh and Colonel schwartzkopf and Colonel Breckinridge went over to new york to inspector Bruckman and they got General o’ryan and sam Foley, the Bronx district attorney in. Then they got hold of Condon. Then they took perrone and they took miss alexander and they came over and got hauptmann and then they got Whited and then they called on the attorney General and they went to Washington and got the president of the united states to get his attorney General, homer Cummings, and secretary morgenthau to get his agents . . . and we all sat around a room and we conspired against hauptmann. That is the defense. What a story!”40 “if they can feed this jury that sort of a story,” Wilentz continued, “then something has been invented to take the place of food.”41 shortly thereafter, Judge trenchard interrupted the attorney general and announced the court would recess for lunch. one hour and twenty minutes later, court resumed, and david Wilentz took his position before the jury. over the next hour, the attorney general rehashed the entire history of the case, starting with the kidnapping itself through the arrest of hauptmann and gathering of evidence against him. Wilentz left nothing out, talking about the ransom notes, John Condon, Joseph perrone, and the payment of the ransom money.42 he talked about hauptmann’s arrest and the finding of a $20 ransom bill on his person. he discussed the finding of the ransom money in his garage and ridiculed hauptmann’s claims regarding isidor Fisch. he referred to the incriminating board found in hauptmann’s attic and the trim board in his closet with Condon’s name and phone number.43 Then, just as the jury thought Wilentz was winding down, he spent the next forty-five minutes talking in detail about the handwriting evidence. one portion

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 322 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

of this soliloquy was extremely interesting and was reported widely by the media. Wilentz noted that hauptmann insisted that the police forced him to write the word “signature” incorrectly. picking up one of the papers hauptmann wrote for the police and showing it to the jury, Wilentz said, “you can take the request writings. here is one of them. you go through every one of those misspelled writings and there isn’t the word ‘signature’ on one of them to show that we ever asked him to spell it, right or wrong. What do you think of that?”44 This was a devastating attack against hauptmann because it proved him a liar. he insisted that the police made him misspell certain words. now the jury was given clear and unambiguous evidence that hauptmann was not telling the truth. The sting of this accusation lingered as Judge trenchard called for a recess. When court resumed twelve minutes later, Wilentz started to conclude. he turned from the jury and faced Colonel lindbergh. “now, my adversary took the liberty of addressing Colonel lindbergh in his closing, and i am going to do the same thing. i want you to know, Colonel, that we cannot return your baby,” Wilentz said in his most respectful tone, “no king, no nation, or no country can. There is no question about that. We could try this case forever. We could go on for days and days. We couldn’t do anything for Colonel lindbergh.”45 pausing a moment for a breath and for added drama, Wilentz continued, “But, we could do one thing in this case, let me tell you. This jury can, by its verdict, do one thing for the Colonel, for anne, for the country. We can make the country a little bit more secure. We can make the children a little more safer. We can make women a little happier.”46 Though Wilentz did not actually say specifically how the jury was to accomplish these goals, it was understood that he meant convicting hauptmann. Finally, Wilentz turned to the issue of punishment. The jury had three options to consider: not guilty, guilty, and guilty with a recommendation of mercy. Wilentz wanted a guilty verdict without a plea for mercy because the mandatory sentence for such a verdict was death. “now, men and women,” Wilentz began, “as i told you before, there are some cases, there are some cases in which a recommendation of mercy might do. But, not this one, not this one. either this man is the filthiest and vilest snake that ever crept through the grass, or he is entitled to an acquittal.”47 Basically, Wilentz was asking the jury to convict or acquit, but not convict and recommend mercy. Wilentz was building toward a big finish. he would not get it. as he was ready to end his remarks, a man wearing clerical black jumped to his feet and shouted, “if your honor please!”48 he was immediately grabbed by guards and his mouth covered, thus muffling his next words. most people in the court, including the judge, attorneys, and jury, had no clue what he actually said. as he was being forcibly dragged out of the courtroom, david Wilentz, obviously angry at being interrupted, shouted, “if your honor please, i want this man taken out. take him out.”49

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Wilentz Closes

--

/355348t

| 323 |

it has been reported that the man shouted, “i have a confession that was made to me by the man who committed this crime.”50 The official transcript, however, does not contain anything after the man was grabbed. after the man was removed, Judge trenchard ordered a sidebar out of the hearing of the jury. at the bench, the judge announced that he had not heard anything but “your honor.”51 Wilentz wanted the man arrested and put in jail. reilly had additional information for the court. “i think,” reilly whispered, “he ought to be committed to an insane asylum. They tell me he is a rector of a small church up on the banks of the hudson here, more of a mission. he came to me once and i threw him out.”52 The identity of the man has since been learned. he was Vincent Burns, pastor of an interdenominational church in palisades, new Jersey. he was convinced that someone confessed to him on palm sunday in 1932 that he had kidnapped the lindbergh baby. he apparently spoke with ed reilly, but was properly dismissed as an unreliable witness.53 While reilly and Wilentz were arguing about whether the man should be jailed or committed, Judge trenchard was more concerned about whether the jury had heard the man. ordering both attorneys back to their tables, trenchard addressed the jury. “ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” he said softly, “it is very unfortunate that this scene had to occur here and that it did occur. i don’t imagine that the jury heard anything that this man said, except his exclamation that he wanted to address the Court; but, if perchance, you did hear anything that he said, my instruction to you is, at the request of counsel on both sides, that you utterly and entirely disregard anything that you heard and forget the scene.”54 Judge trenchard announced that he would give his instructions to the jury in the morning and allow them to deliberate. With that, he adjourned until morning and never even offered Wilentz the chance to complete his closing statement. While he likely had planned a grandiose finish, the strange and outrageous interruption from reverend Burns seemed almost appropriate given the sensational nature of the entire trial.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 324 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

| 37 |

The Verdict

at 10:04 a.m. on tuesday morning, the trial resumed. after confirming that the defendant was in the courtroom, Judge trenchard ordered the court officers to close the doors and not allow anyone in or out while the jury received its instructions.1 When the doors were secure, the judge faced the jury, asked for their attention, and said: The prisoner at the bar, Bruno richard hauptmann, stands charged in this indictment with the murder of Charles a. lindbergh, Jr., at the township of east amwell in this County on the first day of march, 1932. it now comes your duty to render a verdict upon the question of his guilt or his innocence and upon the degree of his guilt, if guilty. in doing this, you must be guided by the principles of law bearing upon this case that i will now proceed to lay before you.2

trenchard began his discussion of the law by noting that hauptmann was to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. if the jury had any reasonable doubt whatsoever, then hauptmann would have to be found not guilty. The judge spent the next few minutes explaining the legal definition of reasonable doubt.3 “to make out a case of guilt,” trenchard continued, “the state must establish by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, first, the death of Charles a. lindbergh, Jr., as a result of a felonious stroke inflicted on the first day of march, 1932, at the township of east amwell in this County.”4 pausing for just a moment, trenchard added, “secondly, the state, in order to justify a verdict of guilty, must establish by this evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the death was caused by the defendant.”5 The judge told the jury that evidence had been presented that, if accepted, proved that, shortly after 9:00 p.m. on march 1, 1932, the baby was taken from his

| 324 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Verdict

--

/355348t

| 325 |

crib by the defendant and carried out the southeast window via a wooden ladder. The child died instantly when the ladder broke and the child fell.6 Though the judge was careful to tell the jurors to evaluate the evidence themselves and reach their own conclusions, it seemed apparent that Judge trenchard was expressing his opinion of the evidence rather than providing the law to the jury. many believe that the judge’s words had a profound impact on the jury, even if they did not realize it. Judge trenchard then moved to the testimony of John Condon. he discussed the various letters that Condon had received from the kidnapper, the meetings in the cemeteries, and the exchange of the ransom money. he also reminded the jury that Condon identified hauptmann as the man in the cemetery, and that Joseph perrone (the cab driver) identified hauptmann as the man who gave him a note to deliver to Condon.7 “it has been argued,” trenchard said, “that dr. Condon’s testimony is inherently improbable and should be in part rejected by you. But, you will observe that his testimony is corroborated in large part by several witnesses whose credibility has not been impeached in any manner whatsoever.”8 once again, the judge was presenting his own opinion squarely before the jury, though he was quick to add that Condon’s testimony should be rejected if the jurors had any reasonable doubts as to its veracity. after giving this option to the jury, he added, “But, upon the whole, is there any doubt in your mind as to the reliability of dr. Condon’s testimony?”9 trenchard gave a passing reference to Colonel lindbergh’s identification of hauptmann’s voice. he offered no opinion on this other than to say that the jurors had the right to accept or reject this testimony.10 he gave similar commentary about the handwriting evidence, but pointed out that the prosecution had numerous witnesses whereas the defense had only one.11 having covered the evidence offered by the state, the judge turned to the arguments from the defense. it is here that many people contend that Judge trenchard demonstrated a significant bias against the defendant. “it is argued by the defendant’s counsel that the kidnapping and murder was done by a gang, and not by the defendant, and that the defendant was in nowise concerned therein,” trenchard charged. “The argument was to the effect that it was done by a gang, with the help or connivance of some or more servants of the lindbergh or morrow households. now, do you believe that? is there any evidence in this case whatsoever to support any such conclusion?”12 Wasting no time, the judge reminded the jury that large amounts of the ransom money were found in the defendant’s possession. he also discussed hauptmann’s contention that isidor Fisch left him the money in a shoebox, which he stored on a shelf in his closet until he found the money months later after a rainstorm.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 326 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

“do you believe his testimony,” the judge asked, “that the money was left with him in a shoe box and that it rested on the top shelf in his closet for several months? his wife, as i recall it, said that she never saw the box, and i do not recall that any witness, excepting the defendant, testified that they ever saw the shoe box there.”13 regarding the ladder found at the scene of the crime, trenchard said, “There is evidence from which you may conclude, if you see fit, that the defendant built the ladder, although he denies it. does not the evidence satisfy you that at least a part of the wood from which the ladder was built came out of the flooring of the defendant’s attic?”14 trenchard also discussed hauptmann’s alibi defense. he told the jury to carefully weigh the credibility of the witnesses, but also added that prior convictions and contrary statements of witnesses should be taken into consideration.15 The judge concluded his instructions to the jury by giving them the legal definitions of burglary and murder in the first degree and reminding the jurors that a sentence of death would be mandatory for murder in the first degree unless a recommendation of mercy was expressly given by the jury.16 When the judge was finished, the jury filed out of the courtroom to deliberate. it was 11:23 a.m. The attorneys proceeded to the bench to note any objections to the judge’s instructions. it took forty-six minutes to record all of the objections from the defense.17 Bruno hauptmann was returned to his cell to await his fate. under new Jersey law, he was not permitted to see his attorneys or have any visitors while the jury deliberated. all he could do was pace his cell and wait. Questions have arisen as to the way Judge trenchard delivered his instructions to the jury. did he simply read the charge or did he use a tone of voice indicating an obvious contempt for the defendant? his exact tone of voice cannot be determined as there are no known audio recordings, yet this has not stopped authors from making firm accusations. anthony scaduto wrote that trenchard guided the jury to their verdict using “icy intonations calling hauptmann a liar,”18 whereas lloyd Gardner described the charge as “a debate rebuttal speech to reilly’s summation.”19 sir ludovic Kennedy was not as dramatic as scaduto or Gardner, noting that the written summation seemed absolutely fair, but the manner in which it was delivered was biased and presented the judge’s opinions to the jury in a subtle manner.20 had Judge trenchard used a tone or exhibited an attitude as strongly anti-hauptmann as scaduto and Gardner suggest, at least one of the defense attorneys should have said so in their exceptions for the record. They did not. moreover, it is logical to conclude that some of the newspapers covering the trial would have reported it, probably in a manner showing trenchard to be a hanging judge imposing justice on hauptmann. This did not occur either.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Verdict

--

/355348t

| 327 |

For these reasons, it is not clear or convincing that Judge trenchard either was intentionally biased against hauptmann or used a tone demonstrating his contempt for the defense. trenchard’s written charge expressed his opinions of the evidence against hauptmann, though this was permissible under new Jersey law at that time. in new Jersey in 1935, a trial court judge was permitted to give the jury the benefit of his individual view of the evidence, so long as he was careful to avoid controlling them with a binding instruction. he could even comment on what weight the jury should give various pieces of evidence.21 in fact, the new Jersey supreme Court used this exact standard on hauptmann’s eventual appeal to uphold trenchard’s instructions to the jury as legally permissible.22 around 3:00 p.m., the jurors sent word that they wanted a magnifying glass to examine some of the evidence. This caused rampant speculation as people wondered exactly which piece of evidence the jury was looking at so closely. some assumed it was the handwriting evidence, while others thought it might be the wood of the kidnapper’s ladder. around 6:00 p.m., Judge trenchard ordered the union hotel to provide sandwiches and coffee for the jurors. Three hours later, the jury requested cigarettes, but had no announcement of a verdict. as the deliberations continued, a crowd of people waited outside the courtroom anxious for a verdict. now and again, a chant of “Kill hauptmann” erupted. members of the media kept a vigil, hoping for any piece of news to scoop the opposition. one reporter for the associated press was seated in the courtroom, zealously guarding his briefcase. inside was a shortwave radio. his job was to send one code to signal the return of the jury and another code to announce the verdict. This would allow the associated press to deliver the verdict before anyone else. Finally, at 10:28 p.m., the sheriff, having been informed by the jury that they had reached a verdict, ordered one of his deputies to climb to the court tower and ring the bell. it was tradition in hunterdon County that verdicts were announced by the ringing of this bell. as the deputy was on his way, there was action in the courtroom. david Wilentz walked out of the judge’s chambers and into the courtroom, while the court officers began to prepare the room. Those in the courtroom understood this to mean that the jurors were on their way back. as arranged, the associated press reporter sent a coded message intending to signal the return of the jury. unfortunately, he inadvertently sent the wrong code and mistakenly informed the world that hauptmann had been found guilty, but given a recommendation of mercy. as a result of this error, some newspapers were issued reporting hauptmann’s life sentence.23 as the bell tolled, the crowd outside the courthouse cheered, but quieted quickly in anticipation of news of the verdict. inside, the courtroom was filling rapidly. reilly and

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 328 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

This is a very rare special “Extra” edition of the Erie Dispatch Herald, which mistakenly declared that the jury gave Hauptmann life. I found this one on eBay, bought it, and donated it to the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives in memory of my grandmother, Corinne Cahill. Immediately below that is the headline from the corrected edition for the next morning.

Wilentz were already in their seats while Lloyd Fisher was talking with Anna Hauptmann, making her promise not to react too strongly or emotionally to the verdict. Not long after the courtroom was filled to capacity, the sheriff and five troopers brought Bruno Richard Hauptmann to the defense table. Hauptmann was handcuffed to one of the guard’s wrists, and his feet were manacled. As a result, his gait was slow and awkward. When he reached the defense table, Fisher leaned toward him and said, “This is only the beginning, Richard. Don’t show a sign.”24 As the jury filed in, the attorneys, newsmen, and onlookers examined their faces for any sign of what was to come. The jurors all seemed tired. Verna Snyder’s eyes were red and puffy. Some speculated she might have been crying, though others thought it was just her cold. None of the jurors seemed to be giving any clear signs other than nervousness. Everyone inside and out was silently waiting for the verdict. Agonizing minutes passed ever so slowly, but Judge Trenchard did not appear. Murmurs rose from the impatient crowd wondering why the judge was waiting so long. Nearly ten minutes after the jury entered the courtroom, the court crier announced the resumption of court. The assembled crowd rose as Judge Trenchard slowly took the bench, rapped his gavel, and politely asked them to be seated. After confirming the presence of the defendant and jurors for the record, Judge

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

The Verdict

--

/355348t

| 329 |

trenchard ordered them to stand. The twelve jurors stood as one while hauptmann and the guards he was shackled to got to their feet. as all awaited the verdict, Court Clerk Fell asked, “members of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?” in one voice, the twelve responded, “We have.” “Who will speak for you?” “The Foreman,” the jurors replied. turning directly toward the frightened foreman, Charles Walton, the court clerk asked, “mr. Foreman, what say you? do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?” taking a piece of paper from his pocket, Walton attempted to unfold it and his shaking hands nearly tore it. Finally, he read the words everyone was waiting to hear. “Guilty,” he started in a cracking voice, “We find the defendant, Bruno richard hauptmann, guilty of murder in the first degree.” immediately, a few members of the press jumped to their feet to get their written bulletins out to the public. Judge trenchard was apparently ready for this and ordered the doors closed. no one was getting in or out until the verdict and sentencing were completed. edward reilly asked that the jury be polled. it is common practice even today to have the jury give their verdict individually. The hope is that at least one juror is not completely happy with the verdict and decides to change his or her mind at the last minute. it happens extremely rarely. Judge trenchard granted the request, and the court clerk called each juror by name. one by one, each juror announced the verdict of guilty. When the polling was complete, hauptmann sat down. neither he nor anna had given any verbal response to the verdict, but anna’s face showed her emotional agony. her husband seemed pale but generally stoic. Judge trenchard announced to the courtroom that those wishing to leave would now be permitted to do so. There were some who scampered for the door, but most remained to hear the actual sentencing. david Wilentz was so excited over his victory that he forgot that proper procedure required him to formally request sentencing of the defendant. Judge trenchard, however, maintained his composure and said, “it seems to the Court that there is nothing remaining except to impose the sentence provided by the statute, and i am asking now the attorney General if he moves sentence.” slightly embarrassed, Wilentz replied, “if your honor please, the state moves for sentence of the defendant at this time.” hauptmann was ordered to stand and he did so, his face showing little emotion. trenchard wasted little time pronouncing the defendant’s fate. “Bruno richard hauptmann,” the judge began, “you have been convicted of murder in the first degree. The sentence of the Court is that you, the said Bruno richard hauptmann, suffer death at the time and place and in the manner provided by law.”25

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 330 |

--

/355348t

hauptmann’s ladder

While the courtroom continued to buzz, the judge thanked the jury for their service and remanded the defendant into the custody of the sheriff. as the judge left the bench and hauptmann stood up ready to be taken away, someone ran to a back window, threw it open, and yelled, “Guilty! death!” The crowd outside cheered wildly and lloyd Fisher was heard to say, “This is a cry for blood.”26 Though hauptmann had shown no reaction to the verdict, this changed as soon as the courtroom door closed behind him. he sagged immediately as if all his energy had been drained. he was partially carried to his cell and, once inside, threw himself on to the cot and wept bitterly, crying out in German.27 meanwhile, the once full courtroom was now almost empty. The reporters had run off as soon as the door opened, and the attorneys for the state and defense were giving their public statements on the verdict. anna hauptmann remained in her seat. she had kept her word to lloyd Fisher and not reacted to the verdict, but could not contain the pain any longer. she pulled a handkerchief from her purse and began to cry. The Flemington chief of police, John Walters, walked into the courtroom and saw mrs. hauptmann. Filled with pity, he politely asked anna if he could escort her home. mrs. hauptmann paused for a moment to regain her composure before standing. she took hold of the chief ’s arm and walked with him out of the courtroom.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Epilogue

| 331 |

Epilogue

On April 3, 1936, after numerous appeals all the way to the United States Supreme Court, an ill-fated attempt by New Jersey Governor Hoffman to prove Hauptmann’s innocence, and a last-minute false confession beaten out of a man named Paul Wendel, Bruno Richard Hauptmann died in the electric chair for the murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr. Shortly before his execution, Hauptmann is reported to have said, “They think when I die, the case will die. They think it will be like a book I close. But the book, it will never close.” Indeed, after more than eighty years, the book has not closed. People continue to debate certain questions about the case. Now I offer my opinions. 1. Did Bruno Richard Hauptmann Kidnap the Lindbergh Baby? There is a tremendous amount of evidence in this case. There are eyewitnesses linking him to Hopewell and an “earwitness” identifying him as Cemetery John. Joseph Perrone identified Hauptmann as the man who gave him a note to deliver to John Condon, and Condon identified Hauptmann as the man to whom he gave $50,000 of Lindbergh’s money. There is circumstantial evidence such as the fact that Hauptmann quit his job the day after the ransom was paid or that he had unexplained wealth equal to the amount of the ransom payment. Cecille Barr testified that Hauptmann passed one of the ransom bills at a theater. Other witnesses gave descriptions of a man passing around ransom money, descriptions that matched Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Two gas station attendants provided a $10 gold ransom bill upon which they wrote the license number of a car belonging to the man who gave the bill to them. The license number belonged to Hauptmann. The police found a $20 gold certificate that was part of the ransom on Hauptmann’s person when he was arrested. Subsequent searches of Hauptmann’s garage revealed $14,600 of ransom money. There is the testimony of several handwriting experts who swore that Hauptmann wrote all of the ransom notes. This evidence was reviewed again as part of an | 331 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 332 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

episode of Forensic Files. Three experts—Peter Baier of Germany, Gideon Epstein of Washington, D.C., and Grant Sperry of Nashville, Tennessee—reviewed the ransom notes and known writings of Hauptmann. All three experts concluded that Hauptmann more likely than not wrote all of the ransom notes. All of these things are significant pieces of evidence pointing toward Hauptmann’s guilt. Over the years, many researchers have alleged various flaws and defects with the proof. For example, one eyewitness, Amandus Hochmuth, had documented problems with his eyesight. John Condon changed his story many times, and Charles Lindbergh’s identification of a voice he heard say two words over two years earlier seems far-fetched. Handwriting is not as clear-cut as DNA or fingerprints. There is one piece of evidence, however, that has never been successfully challenged: the comparison between Rail Sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder and the board taken from the floor of Hauptmann’s attic. Modern scientists, such as Kelvin Keraga, who have studied and reviewed the ladder and wood evidence, have concluded that Rail Sixteen was taken from the board in Hauptmann’s attic. Though some claim that Rail Sixteen was fabricated, this is simply not possible. All of the evidence, but especially the wood evidence, leads me to conclude that Bruno Richard Hauptmann was guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. I chose the title Hauptmann’s Ladder for this book because the one unassailable fact in the Lindbergh kidnapping case is that Rail Sixteen was created out of his attic board. It was indeed Hauptmann’s ladder. 2. Did Bruno Richard Hauptmann Get a Fair Trial? By today’s standards, Hauptmann did not receive anything close to a fair trial. It is inappropriate, however, to evaluate the trial using any standards other than those in effect in 1935. Using the legal rules and requirements of 1935, it becomes a much narrower question. Officially, the legal system declared the trial to be within the confines of the law. The New Jersey State Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and denied all allegations of legal error.1 The United States Supreme Court declined to grant any further review.2 A lawsuit filed by Anna Hauptmann for wrongful death and violation of her husband’s civil rights was dismissed.3 The dismissal was affirmed on appeal.4 I think Judge Trenchard ran a pretty good trial considering the overall chaos both inside and outside the courtroom. (There do remain questions, though, about the charge to the jury.) Ultimately, I do not think Hauptmann was treated fairly by the legal system, but not due to the conduct of the trial. The specific charges leveled against Hauptmann were the most unfair part of the legal proceeding (see Question 3). Under the law in 1935, Hauptmann received essentially a fair trial. One must remember that rules requiring disclosure of evidence supporting a defendant’s case (Brady rule), Miranda warnings, and other legal safeguards that we take for granted

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Epilogue

| 333 |

today did not exist in 1935. By the legal requirements of today, the trial would be considered a farce. 3. Should Bruno Richard Hauptmann Have Been Executed? Though I believe Hauptmann was guilty and received a fair trial by the standards of New Jersey law in 1935, I do not believe he should have been executed. These may seem to be contrary conclusions. They are not. Hauptmann was charged with murder in the first degree upon a theory that the child was killed during the course of the commission of a felony, namely burglary. The common legal name for this theory is felony murder. More specifically, the burglary involved the breaking and entering into Lindbergh’s home at night for the express purpose of stealing the child’s nightclothes. Kidnapping was not a felony in New Jersey in 1932. It was only a misdemeanor. Thus, Hauptmann could not be guilty of felony murder if the child died in the course of a kidnapping, so the prosecution offered the theory of a burglary in order to avail itself of the death penalty. I believe the charge of burglary and the use of the death penalty were inappropriate and a stain upon the New Jersey legal system. In my opinion, Hauptmann was guilty of manslaughter, kidnapping, extortion, two counts of illegal possession of a weapon, hoarding gold certificates, and illegally entering the United States. He was not guilty of murder. For the crimes of which he was guilty, Hauptmann could have received a combined sentence that would have kept him in prison for the remainder of his natural life. To execute the man on the burglary theory was wrong and contrary to basic human decency.5 4. Did Hauptmann Intend to Kill the Lindbergh Baby or Keep Him Alive for the Ransom Exchange? This is a question that even David Wilentz argued back and forth. During the entire trial, the theory was offered that the child died when he fell after the ladder broke. Yet, in his closing, Wilentz argued to the jury that Hauptmann killed the child in the nursery to keep him from crying out.6 Put simply, there is no evidence proving that Hauptmann either planned to kill the baby or deliberately murdered the child. Hauptmann buried the child in an extremely shallow grave. He did not bring a shovel with him, or at least he did not use a shovel to dig the grave. Logically, if Hauptmann intended to kill the child at or near the scene of the crime, he would have brought a shovel or had some better means of disposing of the corpse. Based upon the obvious evidence of a hurried flight from the Lindbergh estate,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 334 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

I conclude that the child died from an accidental fall when the rail of the ladder broke under the combined weight of the child and Hauptmann. The baby likely hit his head on a projecting stone windowsill and died immediately. The noise of the cracking wood and fall caused Hauptmann to panic and run off, leaving the ladder behind. He then buried the child the first chance he had in a hastily dug grave. If Hauptmann intended to keep the child alive, the question then arises as to where he intended to keep him. During my research at the New York City Municipal Archives, I uncovered a document that may offer some answers.7 Among papers allegedly found in Hauptmann’s home and garage was a rental application with Hibbs Real Estate and Insurance. The application sought a one- or two-room apartment for two people named “Lynch” and “Jones.” The place was needed by March 1, 1932, and would be occupied until September 30, 1932. If this document is authentic, then it would seem that Hauptmann planned to keep the child in an apartment for as long as six months before returning him either at or subsequent to the ransom exchange. If he planned to kill the child, there would have been no need to rent the apartment. I must admit that I have some doubts about the veracity of this document. Unlike the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives, the security at the New York City Municipal Archives was quite poor. I was just handed the folder containing original documents and allowed to view and handle them with no supervision. Anyone could have easily placed documents in the folder. Moreover, the handwriting on the form appears to be different than Hauptmann’s known handwriting. Granted, I am not a handwriting expert, but even to the untrained eye, there is little similarity. It is certainly possible that the form was filled out by a clerk based on Hauptmann’s verbal responses. If this document is what it purports to be, then it is solid evidence proving that Hauptmann never intended to kill the child. He just planned to hold him for a few months before getting his payoff. 5. What Was Hauptmann’s Motive? Why Did He Commit the Crime? Some have speculated that Hauptmann kidnapped Lindbergh’s son to make himself seem important or famous. More likely, since kidnapping for ransom was rather common during the 1920s and 1930s, the crime was committed for financial gain. He did it for the money. In 1932, the effects of the Great Depression were still reverberating. Work was difficult to find, and many families were starving and losing their homes. The Hauptmanns were having some financial difficulties as well. According to documents at the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives, Hauptmann’s landlord ordered the Bronx Gas and Electric Company to shut off electricity and gas service on March 29, 1932. Presumably, this was done because Hauptmann had not paid or could not pay the bill.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Epilogue

| 335 |

Hauptmann’s behavior after the ransom was paid showed extravagance and a desire to live the good life. He bought an expensive radio, a pair of field binoculars, and new furniture, including a walnut bedroom set and an ivory crib for his baby. He also quit his job as a carpenter, demonstrating that he had no intention of ever working again. It may seem overly simple, but most crimes generally are. Hauptmann was a struggling carpenter who wanted a better life. He wanted to live a life he felt he deserved but could never obtain. He kidnapped the Lindbergh baby for a quick payoff, only to accidentally kill the child and eventually lose his life in return. 6. What Gave Hauptmann the Idea to Kidnap a Child for Money? Since Hauptmann never confessed, it is simply not possible to know why he chose kidnapping as opposed to bank robbery as his shortcut to wealth and economic security. I suspect that Hauptmann may have been partially inspired by the most famous American kidnapping prior to the Lindbergh case, the case of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. On May 21, 1924, fourteen-year-old Bobby Franks was kidnapped and killed by Loeb and Leopold. Their motive was not money as both men were quite wealthy. Instead, they killed for the thrill, the idea of which sent shock waves throughout the country. The Loeb and Leopold case was headline news throughout 1924. Bruno Richard Hauptmann entered the United States near the end of 1923, so he was in the country when this case was the top story. It stands to reason that he would have had some familiarity with the case. In both the Loeb and Leopold case and the Lindbergh kidnapping, a ransom note was delivered to the father of the kidnapped child. Though the note was left at the scene for Lindbergh to find, Loeb and Leopold sent their letter through the mail. Their note is remarkably similar to Hauptmann’s letter. It read as follows: Dear Sir: As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you live up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty. 1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 336 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

2. Secure before noon today $10,000. This money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. The money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile. 3. The money should be placed in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax. 4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o’clock. See that the telephone is not in use. You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course. As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions. However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that your son will be returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money. Yours Truly, George Johnson

Hauptmann’s initial letter was not as well written because his knowledge of the English language was considerably less than Loeb or Leopold, yet there are several striking similarities. Both letters start with “Dear Sir” and spell out specific denominations of the bills to be used for the ransom payoff. Moreover, both letters requested an unusually low amount of money considering the believed wealth of the fathers of the kidnapped children. Although Hauptmann’s first letter did not contain a reference to the type of box to be used for the payoff, his later letters did. Loeb and Leopold’s letter gave similar instructions. In many ways, the letter left in the Lindberghs’ nursery appears to be an attempt by a man largely ignorant of the English language to write a letter similar to the Loeb and Leopold ransom note. I openly concede that this point requires significant speculation on my part. There is no other evidence proving that Hauptmann had any knowledge of the 1924 kidnapping, and the similarities in the two letters may just be a large historical coincidence. It is, however, a fascinating possibility.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Epilogue

/355348t

| 337 |

7. Did Hauptmann Have an Accomplice? This is the most highly debatable question of the entire Lindbergh kidnapping case. Anyone who announces a definitive answer on this question has either not done the necessary research or has allowed a bias to overshadow and dominate his or her thought process. Some claim that there must have been an accomplice because one person could not have physically accomplished the kidnapping. This is just not so. It would have been difficult, but not impossible, for one man to perform. The evidence offers some tantalizing clues, but fails to provide a sufficiently satisfying answer. There are some items, such as the J. J. Faulkner note, which point directly at the idea of an accomplice, but still can be explained away. A recent publication has offered an allegation that Hauptmann was part of the conspiracy but not the leader or main culprit.8 Unfortunately, no clear evidence is offered to support this interesting theory. Even more striking is the author’s reference to a conversation he had with former New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne. During this conversation, Governor Byrne recalled a statement made by David Wilentz in 1981. Wilentz is alleged to have said that he could have indicted Anna Hauptmann as her husband’s coconspirator.9 Since I was not present in 1981 when Wilentz and Byrne spoke, I cannot comment on whether the statement was made. I can say that I never uncovered any evidence that suggested Anna Hauptmann’s involvement in the crime. I do not believe that Bruno Richard Hauptmann had a coconspirator at the scene of the crime. I do think it possible that he had an accomplice after the fact for the purpose of laundering the money, but it was not his wife. Any evidence of an accomplice at the Sourland estate was destroyed by the police’s failure to effectively preserve the crime scene. Moreover, if Hauptmann had someone helping him during the crime, he chose a poor assistant indeed. If Hauptmann had a collaborator at the scene of the crime, then why were the ladder and chisel left on the grounds? Though Hauptmann might have been injured in the fall, his associate could have easily grabbed the ladder and chisel and removed this valuable evidence. It is possible, however, that the second person was merely the driver of the getaway car. In such a scenario, Hauptmann would be doing nearly all of the work and taking all of the risks. Furthermore, there would be no need to share the money with another person if all that person was doing was driving a car. Hauptmann could have done that himself. There is no evidence to completely disprove this possibility, though. Hauptmann may have needed help caring for the child if he had not accidentally killed him. He could not have kept the baby at home or his wife would have learned

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 338 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

the truth. If he intended to keep the child at the apartment he applied to rent, would he have cared for the child alone or had someone else assist him as a nursemaid? There is additional evidence suggesting the possibility of an accomplice after the fact. The entire matter of J. J. Faulkner, the unknown person who deposited $2,980 in gold notes at the Federal Reserve Bank, supports the concept of an accomplice. The limited handwriting on the slip does not match Hauptmann’s known writing samples. If Faulkner was not Hauptmann, then who was he or she? Perhaps Hauptmann needed assistance in laundering the ransom money. President Roosevelt ordered all gold certificates exchanged for greenbacks. It would be illegal to possess gold notes. If Hauptmann still had a significant amount of them left, he would have needed help in getting rid of them without being detected. In such an event, Hauptmann might not even have told “Faulkner” where the money came from, though anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence could have figured it out. The idea of an accomplice might also provide an answer to the question of why Hauptmann never confessed even when offered his life. Assuming Hauptmann used some minor underworld character to launder some of the ransom money, he either revealed where the money came from, or the accomplice would have deduced it. To protect himself, the accomplice may have threatened Hauptmann or threatened to harm or kill his wife and child if he ever squealed. Hauptmann may have kept silent to protect his family. Sadly, the evidence does not provide a solid answer to these questions and speculations. Consequently, it is unclear whether Hauptmann had help in committing the crime or spending the money. Given the absence of any evidence of a second person at the Sourland estate, it is most likely that Hauptmann acted alone. On the other hand, there is some evidence that another person was involved in the spreading of the ransom money. There is nothing rock solid, but enough to allow rational speculation. 8. What About the Newly Discovered “Table Confession”? Is It a Hoax or Proof of Hauptmann’s Innocence? In 1948, a man named Elmer Bollard was repairing a Mersman Duncan Phyfe table that he had purchased eight years earlier.10 On a block of wood used to reinforce the joint, he found a note scribbled in German. Unable to read German, Bollard took it to a friend, who translated it. It read: In Hamburg da bin ich gewesen in Samet und in Seide gekleidet Meinen Namen den darf ich nicht nennen Denn Ich war einer der Kidnapper des Lindberg babys und nicht Bruno Richard Hauptmann

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Epilogue

/355348t

| 339 |

Der Rest des Lösesgeldes liegt in Summit New Jersey begraben N.S.D.A.P.

The rough English translation is: “In Hamburg, I wore velvet and silk. I cannot tell you my name because I was one of the kidnappers of the Lindbergh baby. The rest of the ransom money lies buried in Summit, New Jersey.” “N.S.D.A.P.” are the initials of the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or, as known in English, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or Nazi Party. Upon learning the translation, Bollard turned the block over to the South Plainfield Police Department. It was later examined by the New Jersey State Police and quickly declared a forgery. In 2003, fifty-five years later, Mark Falzini, the archivist at the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives, was rummaging through a crate when he found the wood block.11 It had the penciled German note, and the block had five holes in it where it had been attached to the table. There was one central hole with holes on the top, bottom, left, and right. On a whim, Falzini took one of the original ransom notes and set it across the holes on the board. They matched perfectly. After further testing, Falzini proved that “all of the ransom notes with the symbol, when laid on top of the center three holes, line up perfectly. When laid on top of one another they line up perfectly as well.”12 This discovery made instant news. Several Lindbergh researchers openly declared the board to be the actual template used to create the original ransom notes.13 More experienced researchers acknowledged the find, but were less willing to offer such a bold statement without further research. Thereafter, a former director of Sotheby’s Appraisals in North America was contacted and asked about the table and the pattern of holes. In response, the expert noted that the pattern of holes was common to the manufacture of tables and had been so for a long time. This opinion opened the possibility of any similar table board as the template for the holes on the ransom letters. There have been analyses of the handwriting on the board. The writing is not considered to be truly German. Additionally, it does not match the handwriting of anyone known to be involved with the trial or investigation. I have concluded that the “table board confession,” as it has come to be known, is both a hoax and a significant piece of evidence. It is not a true confession from one of the kidnappers and is not the actual template used by Hauptmann. I reach this conclusion for three reasons. First, there is no evidence showing that this table existed in 1932, the year of the kidnapping and creation of the letters. There are no surviving police reports, though numerous newspaper articles exist. Unfortunately, these news accounts have such

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 340 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

glaring factual errors that it is difficult to rely upon their content. For example, the date of the building and/or purchase of the table ranges from 1938 to 1940. Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever documenting or even suggesting that the table was built prior to 1938. Second, the actual message written on the board was not written by a person whose native language was German. There is a mixture of German and English and the grammar suggests a person thinking in English, not German. The first line of the text comes from an old German sailor’s song. Some speculate that the writer may have had grandparents or other relatives from Germany. The note is signed with a reference to the German Nazi Party. This, above all else, forces me to conclude the “confession” a hoax. The German Nazi Party was struggling to gain power in 1932 and did not actually get Adolf Hitler full control of Germany until 1933. The idea that the Nazis would have orchestrated a kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby in 1932 is laughable. The Nazis were evil, despicable, and certainly not above kidnapping and killing a baby. They would not, however, have bothered with the child of an American (even one as famous as Lindbergh) during a time when they were desperately trying to get power in Germany. It just would not have been in their interest to do so. Third, the timing and manner of the confession is totally illogical. Anyone writing such a flamboyant confession would not have hidden it in such an unusual place. Why write a confession that people might never see? Why state that the money is buried in Summit, New Jersey and not give any further indication as to specifically where to find it? The message was not written to taunt the police. If it was, it would have been sent directly to them. It was not written to save Hauptmann because he was executed in 1936. It is not far-fetched to believe that an accomplice trying to save Hauptmann could have written such a confession in an attempt to make the police and the public at large question Hauptmann’s guilt. There is no point, however, to such an endeavor once Hauptmann was dead. The police stopped looking for an accomplice, and it would have been foolhardy for anyone involved in the crime to draw attention. For these reasons, I must conclude that the confession is a hoax. I do not believe it was written by anyone involved with the Lindbergh kidnapping. This does not end the inquiry. Questions still remain about the holes in the wood and their exact match to the pattern of holes on the ransom letters. Lacking any evidence proving that the table board existed prior to 1938, it cannot be concluded that it served as the template. Nevertheless, the odds of the exact match being a mere coincidence are too astronomical to disregard or ignore. Though it seems reasonably clear that the holes in the ransom notes were not made by this particular board, I believe that they were produced using a similar board with holes following the same industry standard. Put another way, the kidnapper used a board or piece of furniture that followed the same industry standard for its pattern of holes.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Epilogue

| 341 |

Thus, while the board is not a strong piece of evidence, the testing, analysis, and conclusions of Mark Falzini are incredibly strong. Falzini has overwhelmingly proven that the holes on the ransom notes match the industry standard used by furniture manufacturers. Who would be familiar with furniture and the industry standard? Certainly anyone working in a furniture factory or in the general industry would have this knowledge, as would engineers and carpenters. Hauptmann, as a carpenter, would have known this as well. It must be conceded that anyone could have seen a broken piece of furniture and used it. It just seems more likely that someone in the business would have thought of the idea. Using such an object shows significant intelligence and creativity. The police would have no reason to suspect a piece of furniture as a clue. Additionally, if Hauptmann put the item back together after its use, investigators would almost never have found it. The final question is whether the hoaxer knew or realized the importance of the pattern of holes. Did he make the same discovery as Falzini and then use the wood for his false confession? Was it just an amazing coincidence? Since the hoaxer has never been identified, it is truly impossible to know. 9. What Ever Happened to the People Involved in the Case? 14 Bruno Richard Hauptmann was executed on April 3, 1936, at 8:44 p.m. at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey. His funeral and cremation took place on April 6, 1936, in Queens, New York. His wife, Anna, spent the rest of her life trying to clear her husband’s name. She never remarried or took off her wedding ring. She was truly devoted to her beloved Richard and even filed federal lawsuits against the State of New Jersey in 1981 and again in 1986 seeking a declaration of innocence and a large amount of money. She was unsuccessful. Anna Hauptmann died on October 10, 1994, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Her son, Manfred “Bubi” Hauptmann, is still alive, but has tried exceedingly hard (and often unsuccessfully) to maintain his privacy. Out of respect for his wishes, I have made no attempt whatsoever to contact him and recommend that other Lindbergh researchers leave him alone. Of the attorneys involved in the case, it was Edward Reilly who, not surprisingly, had the most colorful, interesting, and frankly tragic life after the trial. Only a few weeks after the end of the “trial of the century,” Reilly checked himself into Mount Sinai Hospital Pavilion, claiming he was ill and needed rest. On January 30, 1937, at the request of his mother, Reilly was committed to the King’s County Hospital. Doctors considered his condition to be based upon the loss of the trial and a separation suit filed by his wife. Reilly eventually recovered

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 342 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

and filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Appellate Division seeking his release. After making a personal appearance before a Suffolk County jury where Reilly displayed his “old-time wit,” he was released and resumed his law practice.15 Although his subsequent law practice was never as successful as it was before the Lindbergh case, Reilly won several large judgments and verdicts, assisted on criminal appeals, and even sued Liberty Magazine for referring to him as “Death House Reilly.”16 Reilly was never able to turn his private life around. In 1945, his wife sued him for divorce. Reilly died on Christmas Day of 1946 from cerebral thrombosis. In his December 27, 1946, obituary, the New York Times reported about his inability to win freedom for Bruno Richard Hauptmann, but also reported on several of his great victories, including the acquittals of Joseph McDermott and Winifred Ankers on charges of murder. Though noting that he resumed his legal career after his illness, the New York Times reported that Reilly was “a tired man” who no longer had the panache for which he was known. C. Lloyd Fisher continued to represent Hauptmann after the trial. He handled Hauptmann’s appeals and even wrote a seven-piece article for Liberty Magazine about the case.17 Ironically, Fisher was appointed in 1937 to the position of Hunterdon County prosecutor, replacing Anthony Hauck. He served in this capacity for one year. Fisher died on July 1, 1960, at the age of sixty-three, after a long battle with cancer. David Wilentz had a long and distinguished career. He became a prominent member of the State and National Democratic Committees and often advised governors and other Democratic candidates. His son, Robert, served as the chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. His son, Warren, ran for United States senator in 1966, and his daughter, Norma, married Leon Hess, the founder of the Hess Corporation and the owner of the New York Jets. Even Wilentz’s granddaughter, Constance, entered politics, serving as a state representative and a state senator in Pennsylvania. Wilentz was presented with various challenges and claims about his most famous prosecution. He maintained strongly that Hauptmann had been properly convicted. Wilentz died on July 6, 1988, at the age of ninety-three. Judge Trenchard continued working as a judge until retiring on January 24, 1941, at the age of seventy-nine. One year later, on July 23, 1942, he died from a cerebral hemorrhage. H. Norman Schwartzkopf, the superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, finished his third term in that post, but Governor Hoffman, who was very critical of the entire Hauptmann trial, refused to grant him another term. Schwartzkopf briefly worked for a transportation company in New Brunswick and as a voice actor in Gang Busters, a prominent radio show. He later resumed his military career, eventually reaching the rank of brigadier general.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Epilogue

--

/355348t

| 343 |

In 1951, his military career now over, Schwartzkopf was appointed administrative director of the Department of Law and Public Safety, coordinating the investigations of frauds and crime in Hudson County, New Jersey. In a real twist of fate, Schwartzkopf found himself investigating charges of corruption against former Governor Hoffman. The investigation ended with Hoffman’s untimely death in 1954, though a letter written by Hoffman to his daughter contained an admission of guilt. Schwartzkopf retired in 1956 and died two years later as a result of complications from a perforated ulcer. Hugo Stockburger was one of the New Jersey State troopers who spoke German. He was assigned to listen to conversations in German between Hauptmann and his wife. He was also one of the troopers with Hauptmann when he stood up suddenly in court and started shouting at a prosecution witness. For most police officers, being involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping case was the highlight of their careers. This was likely not true of Hugo Stockburger because he personally witnessed another monumental event of history, the explosion of the Hindenburg on May 6, 1937. Stockburger’s career with the New Jersey State Police ended with his retirement in December 1961. He had reached the rank of major and never used a single sick day in his entire career. He went on to be the deputy director of the State Bureau of Alcohol and Beverage Control and thereafter the Milltown director of police. Stockburger was one of the last people involved in the case to survive. He died at the age of one hundred on June 21, 2007. Lt. James J. Finn, the lead investigator from the New York City Police Department, was promoted to acting detective first grade. He worked on a variety of cases, including a high-profile extortion case involving the son of former New York Gov. Alfred E. Smith. Finn’s final assignment was in the Homicide Division in Queens before retiring in September 1946. He died on June 12, 1954, of pneumonia.18 Lewis Bornmann, the officer who first discovered the missing attic board, was promoted to detective on June 1, 1942. He retired on May 2, 1953. Except for a few interviews about the Lindbergh case, little is known of his later life. He died on February 3, 1991. Arthur Koehler, the wood expert, continued to work in his Wisconsin laboratory until his retirement in 1948. He moved to Los Angeles and taught courses on the properties and structure of wood at the University of California. He would also later teach at the University of British Columbia and Yale. Koehler died on July 17, 1967. He was eighty-two years old. Albert S. Osborn, the senior handwriting analyst, founded the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners in 1942. He died at the age of eighty-eight on December 15, 1946. His son, Albert D. Osborn, continued the family business. In 1971, he got into some trouble in a matter involving Howard Hughes when his

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 344 |

--

/355348t

epilogue

firm declared some writing to be genuine only to learn subsequently that it was a forgery. He died one year later on October 28, 1972. Betty Gow, the baby’s nursemaid, continued to work for the Lindberghs until August 1932. She returned home to Scotland, but was brought back for the trial. After the trial, she returned home to Scotland and worked as the manager for a dress shop. She never married. Betty Gow died on July 6, 1996, at the age of ninety-two. Elsie Whateley lost her husband, Olly, in May 1933. He died from a perforated duodenal ulcer. Not long after the trial, Elsie was diagnosed with cancer. She returned to England and died on January 8, 1936. Septimus Banks took the death of Violet Sharp very poorly. He began to drink heavily and eventually checked himself into a sanitarium in August 1932 and again around Christmas of the same year. He later left the Morrow estate and returned to his former employer, Charles Welch. Little is known of his later life. He died in January 1970 at the age of seventy-nine. John “Jafsie” Condon wrote a book about the case called Jafsie Tells All. He also announced a vaudeville tour starring himself, though it was canceled after just two performances. Condon stayed in contact with Charles Lindbergh. They exchanged letters and appeared together at an America First rally in 1940. Condon took ill in November 1944 and died of pneumonia on January 2, 1945, the tenth anniversary of the start of the “trial of the century.” Charles and Anne Lindbergh had a total of six children: Charles Jr., Jon, Land, Anne, Scott, and Reeve. It would later be determined that Charles had three additional children with a woman named Brigitte Heisshaimer and four more children from two other relationships. Lindbergh provided for the children financially, though knowledge of his paternity was kept secret for over thirty years after his death. The Lindberghs left the United States and moved to Europe after the trial. Charles famously went to Germany to examine the Luftwaffe. In 1938, Charles received the German Medal of Honor, leading many to believe he was a Nazi sympathizer. Years later, it was learned that Lindbergh was acting as a spy for the United States against Germany.19 In 1939, the Lindberghs returned to the United States, and Charles became a major player in the peace movement opposing entry into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh flew more than fifty missions for the United States in the Pacific Theater. After the war, Charles was a consultant to the chief of staff of the United States Air Force and was later promoted to brigadier general by President Eisenhower. In 1953, Charles published a book about his famous transatlantic flight, winning the Pulitzer Prize the following year. In the 1960s, he became a spokesman for the conservation movement. Charles Lindbergh died on August 26, 1974, and was buried in Maui.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Epilogue

--

/355348t

| 345 |

Anne Lindbergh wrote thirteen books before suffering a series of strokes in the early 1990s. Eventually, when her condition worsened, she moved in with her daughter, Reeve, to spend her remaining days. She died at the age of ninety-four in 2001. Reeve Lindbergh wrote a very touching book about the experience.20 The Lindbergh children have dealt with the ramifications of this case and its aftermath all their lives. Every year, they receive crank letters, requests for DNA samples, and various forms of contact from people who have convinced themselves that they are the Lindbergh baby. Reeve Lindbergh summed up these experiences quite well, writing: A sixteen-month-old child from my own family dies for no reason except that somebody wanted money from his parents. This fact alone is horrible enough. To translate such a truth into the lingering spectacle it has become in certain quarters is a travesty.21

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

notes

Introduction unless otherwise noted, sources are archived at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. 1. david Wallechinsky and irving Wallace, “did hauptmann really Kidnap and Kill the lindbergh Baby?” in The People’s Almanac 2 (new york: William morrow & Co., 1978), 517. 2. The man with the mustache was anthony scaduto, author of Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976). ironically, the article i was reading at that time was based largely upon mr. scaduto’s book. 3. tom Zito, “did the evidence Fit the Crime?” Life, mar. 1982, 40–54; russell, Francis, “The Case That Will not Close,” The New York Review of Books, nov. 5, 1987, 4–8. 4. ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985). 5. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1988). 6. scaduto, Scapegoat, 260. 7. he would later change his position at trial and deny that he wrote it. his admission, however, was recorded by Benjamin arac, the district attorney’s stenographer, and mr. arac testified about this admission at the trial in new Jersey. 8. scaduto, Scapegoat, 263; Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter, 204; michael Kurland, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Unsolved Mysteries (indianapolis: alpha Books, 2000). Wayne d. Jones dedicates all of Chapter 43 of his book, Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame (new york: Vantage press, 1997), to this rumor. 9. Jim Fisher contends on page 201 of The Lindbergh Case that the police found paper in hauptmann’s home that was identical to the paper used for the ransom notes. however, documents in the new Jersey state police archives challenge this assertion. The paper found in hauptmann’s home was analyzed and found not to be similar to the ransom note paper. additionally, the ransom note paper was relatively common, so possession of similar paper would not have been extremely significant.

1. “They’ve Stolen Our Baby” 1. Charles a. lindbergh, Autobiography of Values, edited by William Jovanovich and Judith a. schiff (new york: harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977), 16. 2. ibid., 130. 3. ibid. 4. a. scott Berg, Lindbergh (new york: Berkley Books, 1978).

| 346 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 3–5

--

/355348t

| 347 |

5. The only deformity the child had was an overlapping of toes on his right foot. despite claims from other lindbergh researchers, there is no evidence at all to support these wild assertions. 6. The fact that there were no curtains or drapes on any of the windows, including on march 1, 1932, the night of the kidnapping, was very significant. 7. This account of Betty’s activities prior to leaving for the sourland estate is based upon her statement to the police, dated march 10, 1932. 8. anne also left her footprints near the nursery window as well. These footprints would be mentioned in some of the initial police reports and become the cause of much speculation among lindbergh researchers. many authors and historians have used these footprints as the basis for claiming that more than one person actually committed the kidnapping. 9. samples of this thread eventually became significant in the identification of the baby’s body and were ultimately entered into evidence at the trial (exhibit s-27). 10. This sleeping suit was on display at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). it has since been returned to the lindbergh family. 11. The account of how the child was prepared for bed is based upon the statements to the police from Betty Gow, anne lindbergh, and elsie Whateley, as well as their trial testimonies. 12. This is true unless one accepts the many stories of those who claim to be the lindbergh baby. There never seems to be a shortage of these claims. in fact, on my first visit to the nJspma, archivist mark Falzini said that he received a phone call that very afternoon from someone who believed he was the lindbergh child. 13. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 7. 14. Gregory ahlgren and stephen monier, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax (Boston: Brandon Books, 1993). This ridiculous idea is discussed later in this work and can be proven as a baseless theory. 15. testimony of Charles lindbergh at trial record, 80. 16. There was a notation in the FBi summary of this case claiming that both Charles and anne heard the cracking sound. FBi summary, part i, 14. There is no source or basis for this statement, so it is either an error on behalf of the drafter or simply a typographical error. all other accounts indicate that anne did not hear the sound. There has been a great deal of speculation about this incident. noel Behn, stephen monier, and Gregory ahlgren all claim that lindbergh never heard this sound. They feel that he fabricated the event to cover up his foul deeds. There is no evidence to support this allegation. 17. some have questioned why lindbergh took a bath that night, alleging that he did so to “hide evidence” of his foul deeds. ahlgren and monier, Crime of the Century. The fact that just about everyone in the household saw him before he took his bath would seem to contradict the need to bathe for such purposes. 18. This particular action has been the source of much speculation. some have questioned why Betty did not see the ransom note when she closed the window. others have stated that the ransom note would have blown away if the window was open when the kidnapper left the nursery. What must be remembered is that Betty Gow opened the French window when she left the nursery and closed the same window when she returned. The shutters outside the French window were closed, so someone looking in from the outside would not have known that the window was open. The kidnapper entered through the southeast window, not the French window. moreover, according to Charles lindbergh and all of the police reports, the southeast window was closed when the ransom note was found. lastly, Betty Gow would not have seen the ransom note because the southeast window was off to her left when facing the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 348 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 5–8

French window. see the trial testimony of Betty Gow and Charles lindbergh, as well as the initial police reports of troopers Wolf, deGaetano, and Bornmann. This is the kind of distortion that occurs when authors and researchers do quick and sloppy research. significant details are missed, and conclusions and allegations become wild and distorted. Those authors who have alleged that no kidnapping took place and that lindbergh engaged in a giant cover-up often ask why Betty Gow did not see the ransom note when she closed the window. a little more attention to detail and more thorough research reveals that Betty did not see the ransom note because she closed the French window and not the southeast window. There is an allegation in The Cases That Haunt Us that the southeast window was unlatched and slightly open. John douglas and mark olshaker, The Cases That Haunt Us (new york: scribner, 2000), 124. according to all of the witness statements, police reports, and trial testimony, the southeast window was closed when Charles lindbergh entered the nursery. only one source supports douglas and olshaker’s assertion. in Autobiography of Values, Charles lindbergh’s memoirs, there is a note on page 139 that the southeast window was “lifted.” While the statement came from lindbergh himself, it must be noted that this book was written over forty years after the event. lindbergh’s memory about the event was much better in 1935 than in 1974. 19. This one statement has been used by authors to support the conclusion that lindbergh took the baby himself as a practical joke. There have even been claims that lindbergh had actually taken the baby once before as a joke just a few months before. nothing in anne lindbergh’s diaries and other sources supports this allegation. There is one notation from anne lindbergh’s diaries and letters in which she mentions that she thought Charles might have been playing a practical joke. however, she made very clear in this letter that she knew immediately it was no joke when she saw her husband’s face. The evidence and contemporary personal accounts do not support the allegation that lindbergh had previously taken the baby as a prank, yet modern books referencing the case—for instance, Jay robert nash’s Bloodletters and Bad Men: A Narrative Encyclopedia of American Criminals from the Pilgrims to the Present (new york: m. evans, 1995), 300—state this as fact. This criminal encyclopedia has an article on Bruno richard hauptmann, which states as a fact that lindbergh had faked a prior kidnapping of his son. The average person would have no way of knowing that this “fact” is entirely false. This is just one of many books and articles on this case that used secondhand and poorly researched materials. 20. to be fair, lindbergh did testify at trial that he was unsure if he initially saw the ransom note the first time he entered the nursery or the second time after he got the rifle. it is not important one way or the other. 21. yet again, numerous allegations have been made concerning the conclusion drawn by Charles lindbergh concerning the ransom note. Certainly, it was a logical conclusion. What else would the envelope have contained?

2. Ransom Notes, Ladders, and Chisels 1. The statements of Colonel lindbergh, as well as the actions taken by lieutenants dunn and Bornmann, are reported in an audio interview of lieutenant Bornmann recorded on June 28, 1983, by Cornel plebani, who was the head archivist at that time. 2. ibid. 3. They did not search the nursery because they already knew the baby was not there, and because Colonel lindbergh had ordered that nothing in the nursery be disturbed.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 8–14

--

/355348t

| 349 |

4. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 11. 5. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 12. 6. some revisionist authors have used this discrepancy to argue that lindbergh already knew about the location of the ladder because he had used it himself. 7. The observations and actions of officer Williamson and officer Wolfe are based upon their individual statements given to the new Jersey state police. 8. Colonel lindbergh’s instructions not to touch the envelope or the contents of the nursery are reported by officer Williamson in his statement to the police. This demonstrates the officers’ respect for Colonel lindbergh. it also shows that lindbergh was already beginning to take control of the investigation. 9. Williamson does not go into great detail in his written statement about the number of prints. however, during his trial testimony, he stated the number and specifics of the prints. trial transcript, 214 and 223. 10. it is important to note that officers Williamson and Wolfe did not touch, move, or closely examine the ladder. Consequently, the condition of the ladder, i.e., that a side rail was broken, was not discovered until lieutenant Bornmann moved the ladder later that evening. 11. it is quite interesting that no one noticed these footprints when lindbergh, Williamson, and Chief Wolfe initially examined the area where the ladder was found. only after the press had descended upon the estate were additional prints discovered. 12. according to Wolf ’s major initial report, he arrived at the sourland estate at approximately 10:55 p.m. other records suggest that he did not arrive until as late as 11:30 p.m. however, the general consensus is that Corporal Wolf arrived around 11:00 p.m. 13. Col. h. norman schwartzkopf was the father of Gen. h. norman schwartzkopf, well known for his role in the persian Gulf War. 14. march 9, 1932, report of trooper deGaetano, 1. 15. The discovery of anne’s footprints was the basis of the newspaper reports’ claims that the baby was kidnapped by two people, a man and a woman. 16. numerous secondary sources claim that Corporal Wolf moved the envelope from the windowsill with a penknife to the mantel before Kelly arrived on the scene. This does not appear to be accurate. all of Kelly’s written statements on this case indicate that the envelope was still on the windowsill when he entered the nursery. in fact, Kelly writes in his march 16, 1932, statement that “half of the letter was over a heat register and the other half rested on the woodwork.” 17. This is not surprising. paper is an extremely poor surface for retrieving fingerprints. 18. some sources say a penknife. 19. This is just one example of the many petty disputes between various police agencies that occurred during the entire investigation. 20. some sources say it was written in blue pencil. after careful examination, it is clear that all the notes are written in blue ink. 21. in transcribing this and the other notes from the kidnapper, different sources reproduce the various misspellings and constructions, but many have errors. The misspellings and strange sentence construction reproduced here are taken directly from the actual notes. no changes or corrections have been made in any way. 22. trial transcript, r. 420. 23. trial transcript, 2120. 24. it has been noted that these samples matched the mud located outside lindbergh’s home. however, these samples apparently were not maintained over the years, as the new Jersey state police museum and archives no longer has them.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 350 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 14–27

25. Bornmann’s observations are taken from his march 9, 1932, written statement, his oral interview recorded on June 28, 1983, and his testimony at trial. trial transcript, r. 364. 26. The number of reporters and the description of their behavior as “absolutely out of control” are taken from the trial testimony of Charles lindbergh. trial transcript, r. 89. 27. it was been widely reported that one of the rungs broke as well. This is not true. While the rails broke near a rung, the rung itself did not break. 28. These findings are recorded in the written statements of trooper deGaetano. 29. This is another example of the very sloppy police work done at the crime scene. This particular error was extremely costly. These new prints were likely not those of the kidnapper. if they had been preserved along with the prints found by the southeast window, this could have been proven definitively. 30. This description is contained in both of trooper deGaetano’s written statements. 31. This is written in deGaetano’s march 3, 1932, statement, but not in the march 9, 1932, statement. 32. This evidence, which will be discussed later in this book, is a metal thumb guard found by Betty Gow. 33. These additional soil samples are also missing. 34. This is certainly a possible scenario. The lack of prints is also just as likely due to Kelly’s poor technique. 35. like the other two, this sample is no longer available.

3. The Kidnapper Makes Second Contact 1. The quote is taken from a. scott Berg, Lindbergh (new york: Berkley Books, 1978), 245. 2. Jim Fisher, The Ghosts of Hopewell (Carbondale: southern illinois univ. press, 1999), 142–43. 3. These actions taken by the police allowed many other people to touch the ladder, so when more fingerprints were found later on the ladder, it was impossible to determine their origin. 4. This postcard is available at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). This note has been cited by some as an actual communication from the kidnapper. it was not. 5. Wayne d. Jones claims in his book, Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame (new york: Vantage press, 1997), 1128–29, that this diaper was actually relevant. There is no supporting proof. 6. This account and description are taken from mr. lupica’s statement to the police. a copy of this statement is stored at the nJspma. 7. sydney Whipple, The Lindbergh Crime (new york: Blue ribbon Books, 1935), 34. 8. many of the books on this case state that the floor plans of the house were printed in newspapers and magazines. only one article reproduced floor plans: “two houses in the international style,” House Beautiful, oct. 1931, 307–9, 356. however, this article contains design plans of a hypothetical house for lindbergh. it is not identical to the sourland home and would have been of no use to the kidnapper. 9. This quote is taken from the June 2, 1932, new Jersey grand jury testimony of salvatore spitale. 10. ibid. 11. This interview took place on march 12, 1932. 12. This second letter is on display at the nJspma in trenton, new Jersey.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 30–44

/355348t

| 351 |

13. like all the other ransom letters, this one is available for inspection at the nJspma. 14. Costello’s opinion about the case is revealed by leonard Katz, Uncle Frank: The Biography of Frank Costello (new york: W. h. allen, 1973). it is also referenced by Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 37.

4. J. F. C. 1. John douglas and mark olshaker write in their book, The Cases That Haunt Us (new york: scribner, 2000), that they could find no reference to a doctorate degree in his credentials. 2. mark W. Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (Bloomington, ind.: iuniverse inc., 2008), 29. 3. ibid., 30. 4. This is the text of the entire note written by dr. Condon. a copy of this handwritten note is available at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). most publications on this case have reported only those portions of the letter that actually appeared in the Bronx Home News. interestingly, in the actual letter, Condon did not offer his services as a go-between despite his later insistence that he had done so. Whether the “offer” as stated by the Bronx Home News was amended with Condon’s blessing is unknown. 5. This envelope is part of the collection of documents at the nJspma. 6. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 22–23. 7. This is the exact language, with spelling and grammatical errors, as written by the kidnapper. a copy of this is available at the nJspma. 8. The first note without the signature was the brief cover letter that accompanied the envelope addressed to Colonel lindbergh but that was mailed to Colonel Breckinridge. 9. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 23–25. 10. Jim Fisher flatly states that lindbergh’s personal secretary, robert Thayer, took Condon’s call. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 43. a. scott Berg also claims that Thayer answered the phone. a. scott Berg, Lindbergh (new york: Berkley Books, 1978), 256. 11. This letter, like all the letters sent by the kidnapper, is available for review at the nJspma. 12. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 27. 13. ibid., 28. 14. ibid. 15. ibid., 32–33. 16. it is disturbing that the child’s blanket and the safety pins were still in the crib nine days after the kidnapping. These items should have been taken into evidence and preserved by the police. as these items still remained in the nursery, Condon, as an outsider, should not have been allowed to sleep in that room.

5. Violet and Curtis: Two Bogus Stories Begin 1. it has been suggested that admiral Burrage was not satisfied that he had actually spoken with lindbergh. see George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 47. 2. likely the involvement of John Condon, with notes sent by the actual kidnapper, led lindbergh to doubt the veracity of Curtis’s story.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 352 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 45–54

3. New York Daily News, mar. 25, 1932, 2. 4. ibid., 4. 5. While most books and even some of the original police reports spell her name as “sharpe,” this is not the correct spelling. according to mark Falzini, archivist at the new Jersey state police museum and archives, Violet’s birth certificate, original signature, and other family documents spell her last name as sharp. see mark W. Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (Bloomington, ind.: iuniverse, 2008), 172n37. 6. most historians feel that this answer was a lie. no evidence was ever found linking Westchester to this crime. however, the caller may have been telling the truth. Bruno richard hauptmann, who was eventually arrested and executed for this crime, did not have a telephone in his house. The nearest public phone was at the subway station a few blocks away. The name of this station is Westchester. hauptmann may have answered the question truthfully, but in a very clever manner. There is no solid proof to establish this fact. it is an interesting coincidence, though. 7. The conversation between Condon and the man with the guttural German accent is taken from dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 57–59. although the book is not entirely reliable, it is the closest thing to an original source about the conversation. 8. in his book, Condon relates in great detail his idea about the ballot box (Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 64–66). 9. later, Condon would have great difficulty in remembering the cabinetmaker’s name.

6. “Cemetery John” 1. This general description comes from perrone’s may 21, 1932, statement to the police. a copy of this document is available at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 2. This specific conversation is taken from a report of agent sisk, dated June 4, 1934, which records an interview with Joseph perrone. The document records the conversation using phonetically spelled words to approximate the man’s thick German accent. This document is available at the nJspma. 3. o’Brien’s exclamation is contained within perrone’s written statement, dated may 21, 1932, a copy of which is available at the nJspma. 4. The brief conversation between Condon and perrone is also taken from perrone’s may 21, 1932, statement to the police. 5. The letter is reprinted complete with spelling and grammatical errors. The original letter can be seen at the nJspma. 6. The original letter can be seen at the nJspma. 7. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 72. 8. al reich mentions this man in his written statement, dated may 13, 1932, and Condon reports it in his book (Jafsie Tells All, 74). however, Condon does not mention him in his written statement to the police, dated may 13, 1932. obviously, he did not consider the appearance of this man as significant. 9. This part of the conversation between Condon and Cemetery John is taken from the FBi transcript of the conversation. it is the first time that Condon gave a report of the conversation and likely the most accurate. he would give numerous accounts of this conversation, each time making subtle changes designed to make his actions seem more heroic and daring. While the general content was the same, there were differences. Therefore, the most accurate account of his conversations are from the first FBi report.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 54–75

/355348t

| 353 |

10. riehl’s actions and statements are taken from his July 19, 1932, statement to the police. unfortunately, he did not get a good look at Cemetery John’s face. 11. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 76. 12. in his written statement to the police, reich denied being able to hear any of the conversation. 13. in the second note sent to lindbergh, received march 4, 1932, it read: “The Kidnaping we preparet in years. so we are preparet for everyding.” in the note sent to Colonel Breckinridge, received march 5, 1932, the kidnapper wrote, “you woudt note get any result from police, becauce our Kidnaping was planet for a year allredy.” 14. a copy of this ad is maintained at the nJspma. 15. a copy of this ad is maintained at the nJspma.

7. The Negotiations Continue 1. They would also have a way to expose greedy people who would later claim to be the lindbergh baby in an attempt to obtain notoriety and a portion of the lindbergh estate. 2. This telephone conversation is taken from dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 98. There is no other source to take this from. 3. lindbergh’s statement is taken from ibid., 104. 4. ibid., 105. 5. The original letter is maintained by the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 6. The original letter is maintained by the nJspma. 7. This letter is taken from Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 114, and is reprinted in George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 64. 8. laura Vitray, The Great Lindbergh Hullabaloo: An Unorthodox Account (new york: William Faro, inc., 1932). 9. ibid., 173. 10. ibid. 11. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 116–17. 12. ibid., 118. 13. The nJspma maintains this and all of the ads printed relating to this case. 14. The description of the woman and her statement is taken from Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 120–22, and is reprinted in Waller, Kidnap, 64–65. 15. The original note can be viewed at the nJspma. 16. ibid. 17. like all the other advertisements, they are available for viewing at the nJspma. 18. ibid. 19. The original of this letter is available for viewing at the nJspma. 20. The original is available for viewing at the nJspma. 21. ibid. 22. ibid. 23. according to the head archivist, mark Falzini, the thumb guard—flat and crushed—is in exactly the same condition as it was when found by Betty Gow. 24. obviously, there is no evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is what occurred. however, it makes the most sense given the proof that does exist. This theory explains the location of the thumb guard, as well as the problems with the footprints and tire tracks found by the police, and is not contradicted by the known evidence.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 354 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 77–85

8. Double-Crossed 1. a copy of this note is maintained by the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 2. a copy of this note is maintained by the nJspma. 3. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 144. 4. a copy of this note is maintained by the nJspma. 5. The description and actions of this man are described by lindbergh in his may 20, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 6. The appearance of the man and young girl is documented in Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 148, and confirmed by Charles lindbergh in his may 20, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 7. Charles lindbergh’s may 20, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 8. This portion of the conversation is taken from Condon’s initial report to the Federal Bureau of investigation. 9. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 88. 10. This handkerchief was later taken by investigators and is currently in the possession of the nJspma. unfortunately, according to mark Falzini, the chief archivist, the cloth was washed and is unlikely to ever offer any dna evidence. 11. This is taken from Charles lindbergh’s may 20, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 12. ibid. years later, lindbergh would write in his memoirs that this man was the same person who yelled, “ay doctor” from the cemetery. he did not make this claim in his initial report, and his recollections recorded in may 1932 were certainly better than those from 1977. it was unlikely that lindbergh actually saw the man who called “ay doctor.” rather, he may have concluded that he had seen the kidnapper and, when he wrote about the event decades later, he simply wrote his incorrect conclusion. 13. This description is taken from Condon’s may 13, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 14. This is taken from Charles lindbergh’s may 20, 1932, written statement to the new Jersey state police. 15. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 157–58. 16. The original of this letter is available at the nJspma. 17. The commissioner issued the order because he received orders himself to do so from federal authorities. 18. dudley schoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 30. 19. ibid. 20. schoenfeld described oliver’s attire as “dressed like a derelict.” 21. schoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 31. 22. ibid. The actions of Captain oliver are also mentioned, without as much detail, by George Waller in his book Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 78–79. The actions of Captain oliver would seem to fit those of the man with the handkerchief whom Charles lindbergh saw. The man appeared shortly after they arrived at the cemetery, walked past them toward the cemetery entrance, and quickly left the scene shortly before Condon returned to the car. lindbergh reported that the man he saw covered his face with a handkerchief. it is possible that lindbergh would have recognized oliver’s face from his dealings with the police department. to avoid being recognized, oliver covered his face.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 85–92

--

/355348t

| 355 |

admittedly, there is no definitive evidence to establish that Captain oliver was the man lindbergh saw covering his face that night. it is only a theory, but it fits the available evidence. in fact, during the september 26, 1934, new york grand jury testimony of Charles lindbergh, when the jurors asked lindbergh about the man with the handkerchief, the assistant district attorney presenting the case repeatedly interrupted and outright stated that this man was not the one who accepted the ransom payment. it is possible that the police knew oliver was the man with the handkerchief and did everything within their power to suppress that information. Can you imagine the response of the public if they found out that a new york City police detective was right outside the cemetery where the ransom was paid and went home rather than make an arrest? The lindbergh-adoring public would not have let the police live down such a shame. For these reasons, it is likely that Capt. richard oliver was the man Charles lindbergh saw that night. While it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is a theory that fully fits the facts and evidence available.

9. The Wild-Goose Chase 1. not surprisingly, Condon would later turn this story around and state that he would do it again, given the opportunity. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 141 and 156. 2. a copy of this ad is maintained at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 3. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 84–85. 4. ibid., 85; a. scott Berg, Lindbergh (new york: Berkley Books, 1998). 5. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 176–78; Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 90. 6. dudley shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 31. 7. Condon himself wrote that he knew several metropolitan newspapers were suspicious that he was Jafsie (Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 176). 8. ibid., 178. 9. Waller, Kidnap, 85. 10. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 91. 11. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 179–80. 12. ibid., 181. 13. ibid. 14. ms. sharp’s new account was taken from her april 13, 1932, written statement to the police. This statement was done in a question-and-answer format and is available at the nJspma. 15. all of these facts are in Violet’s statement of april 13, 2002, with the exception of her choice of beverage. her claims that she drank coffee come from Waller, Kidnap, 134. 16. statement to police by Violet sharp, april 13, 2002. 17. ibid. 18. The statements of the servants are available at the nJspma. 19. Berg, Lindbergh, 270, citing a statement made by anne lindbergh. 20. Waller, Kidnap, 89; C. lloyd Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” Liberty Magazine, aug. 8, 1936, 33.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 356 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 92–98

21. Waller, Kidnap, 89; Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” 33. 22. Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” 33. 23. ibid. 24. ibid. 25. ibid. 26. Waller, Kidnap, 90. 27. ibid. 28. ibid., 94. 29. There are different versions of exactly how Colonel lindbergh was informed of his son’s death. George Waller wrote that lindbergh was told by edwin Bruce, while a. scott Berg reported that the news was brought by two people associated with Curtis. Jim Fisher stated that lt. richard broke the news. it makes more sense that lt. richard would have been the one to do it, though it really matters little.

10. “I Am Perfectly Satisfied That It Is My Child” 1. The actions of both orville Wilson and William allen are taken from their written statements to the police. Both were taken on may 12, 1932. 2. ibid. 3. a copy of this oral interview is available at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 4. mr. Conlon’s statement is contained in an audio interview, dated February 22, 1985, a copy of which is available at the nJspma. 5. The condition of the child’s face is taken from the autopsy report, as well as from oral interviews of Walter h. swayze and John Conlon. 6. The actions and identification made by the officers are noted in their written reports, dated may 12, 1932. These reports are available at the nJspma. 7. see the written reports of Walsh and schwartzkopf, dated may 12, 1932. 8. see the reports of robert hicks, dated october 15, 1934. 9. photographs of these shirts proving the match are available at the nJspma. 10. photographs of the nightshirt and the flannel sample demonstrating their exact match are available at the nJspma. These photographs are powerful and compelling evidence. 11. albert e. edel Chemical and toxicological lab of newark, new Jersey. These items were on display in several vials at the nJspma. however, the new Jersey attorney general recently granted the request of the lindbergh family to have the remains and personal effects of the child returned to the family. prior to their release, the archivist, mark Falzini, took various photos and video of the evidence. These are available for review. 12. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 102. 13. ibid. 14. a. scott Berg, Lindbergh (new york: Berkley Books, 1978), 272. 15. ibid. 16. Waller, Kidnap, 102. 17. schwartzkopf ’s words are taken from the may 13, 1932, edition of the New York Times. 18. The entire text of schwartzkopf ’s remarks is in the may 13, 1932, edition of the New York Times. 19. see the reports of det. robert Coar and samuel leon, dated may 12, 1932. These were the two detectives who escorted Betty Gow. additionally, ms. Gow’s identification is confirmed by the oral interview of John Conlon, a nineteen-year-old assistant of swayze, who

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 98–106

/355348t

| 357 |

was present during this identification, as well as the autopsy itself. This oral interview was done on February 22, 1985. 20. Berg, Lindbergh, 273. 21. alan hynd, “everyone Wanted to Get into the act,” True Magazine, mar. 1949. 22. a recording of this oral interview is available at the nJspma. 23. a copy of this document is available at the nJspma. 24. autopsy report of dr. Charles mitchell, dated may 12, 1932. 25. These findings are taken from the recorded oral interviews of Walter swayze (december 19, 1977) and John Conlon (February 22, 1985). 26. autopsy report of dr. Charles mitchell, dated may 12, 1932. 27. ibid. 28. ibid. 29. The recorded oral interviews of Walter swayze (december 19, 1977) and John Conlon (February 22, 1985) are available at the nJspma. 30. These facts were first reported by Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 117n17. The oral interview of Walter swayze is the primary source of this information. 31. dr. mitchell testified to this at trial, but never mentioned it in the autopsy report. 32. The description of the opening of the child’s skull comes from the oral interview of Walter swayze (december 19, 1977). 33. autopsy report of dr. Charles mitchell, dated may 12, 1932. 34. ibid. 35. “The lindbergh Kidnapping: review of an autopsy,” Journal of Forensic Science 28, no. 4 (oct. 1983):1071–75. 36. ibid. 37. according to mark Falzini, the chief archivist at the nJspma, the police performed tests on the bones and hair, but no dna was recovered. 38. Waller, Kidnap, 106; Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 199. 39. This allegation was made during his oral interview of February 22, 1985. 40. Gregory ahlegren and stephen monier, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax (Boston: Brandon Books, 1993), 239.

11. The Police Take the Reins 1. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 110–11. 2. ibid., 114. 3. lindbergh’s reaction is taken from Waller, Kidnap, 116. There is a contradictory account of the entire interrogation and admission of John Curtis in a series of articles written by lloyd Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” Liberty Magazine, aug. 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 1936, and sept. 5, 12, 1936. however, this account seems false and untrue. it tells the story with Curtis as the hero and the police as evildoers and is wholly unbelievable. 4. again, this comes from Waller, Kidnap, 116–17. Curtis would later say that he agreed to make a confession as long as it was never published. That version was published in Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” Liberty Magazine, aug. 29, 1936, 40. 5. a copy of this statement is available at the nJspma. it also appeared in the New York Times on may 18, 1932. The entire contents of the confession have been reproduced word for word. The spelling and grammatical errors are those of John Curtis. 6. Waller, Kidnap, 118; Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 134.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 358 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 106–113

7. New York Times, may 19, 1932, 16. These boasts are also detailed in Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 137. 8. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 188.

12. The Sad End of Violet Sharp 1. This information comes from Violet sharp’s written statement from the april 13, 1932, interview. a copy is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 2. ibid. 3. ibid. 4. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 135. additionally, there is a significant amount of information about Violet sharp’s medical condition contained within a statement from dr. Walter philips, dated June 16, 1932. a copy is available for inspection at the nJspma. 5. This information comes from a letter from dr. leo haggerty and dr. harry Williams to Colonel schwartzkopf. This letter is available for inspection at the nJspma. moreover, this letter is referenced by Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 144. 6. Violet’s appearance and demeanor are recounted in various sources. however, the closest to a first-hand account comes from inspector harry Walsh, “hunt for the Kidnappers: inside story of the lindbergh Case,” Jersey Journal, nov. 17, 1932, 1, 10. 7. inspector Walsh’s questions and Violet sharp’s answers are all contained in a transcript prepared the day after the interrogation. a copy is available for inspection at the nJspma. 8. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 144. 9. Waller, Kidnap, 142. 10. see transcript, interrogation of Violet sharp, may 23, 1932, 1. 11. ibid., 3. 12. ibid., 1. 13. ibid., 2, 4. 14. ibid., 2. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 3–5. 17. ibid., 6. 18. ibid. 19. ibid., 9. 20. ibid., 9–10. 21. John douglas and mark olshaker, The Cases That Haunt Us (new york: lisa drew Book/scriber, 2000), 160–61. 22. see transcript, interrogation of Violet sharp, may 23, 1932, 7. 23. ibid. 24. ibid., 10. 25. ibid., 13. 26. The order of the questions asked of Violet sharp has been changed slightly. during the actual interrogation, questions on all of these topics were asked in no particular order. The order of the questions has been reorganized to make it easier for the reader. The actual content of the questions and actual answers are unchanged. 27. a copy of this June 7, 1932, letter to miss F. simons is available for inspection at the

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 113–122

/355348t

| 359 |

nJspma. some minor changes in punctuation have been made for easier reading. however, the words used are exactly the same as the original letter. 28. Waller, Kidnap, 150. 29. laura hughes provided a written statement to the police detailing Violet’s behavior. This statement was printed by the New York Times on June 12, 1932. 30. Waller, Kidnap, 150; Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 151. 31. ibid. 32. ibid.

13. From Bad to Worse 1. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 152. 2. ibid. 3. ibid. 4. see statements of ernest Brinkert, June 11, 1932, and June 12, 1932. 5. see statement of ernest Brinkert, June 12, 1932, 2. 6. ibid., 3. 7. see statement of ernest Brinkert, June 11, 1932, 4. 8. see statement of mary Brinkert, June 11, 1932, 2 and 4. 9. ibid., 5. 10. see statement of mary Brinkert, June 11, 1932. 11. The trial transcript spells ms. minners’s first name as “Catherine.” however, her written statement to the police was signed “Katherine,” so the transcript is in error. 12. testimony of ernest miller, February 9, 1935, 4279–85, and ernest miller’s written statement to the police, dated June 11, 1932. 13. see the testimony of Katherine minners, February 9, 1935, 4285–96, and her statement of June 11, 1932, as well as the testimony of elmer Johnson, February 9, 1935, 4296–309, and his statement of June 11, 1932. 14. Waller, Kidnap, 153. 15. These statements and information from the police report appeared in the June 12, 1932, edition of the New York Times. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. ibid. 19. John douglas and mark olshaker, The Cases That Haunt Us (new york: lisa drew Book/scriber, 2000), 159–60. 20. Violet sharp’s diary and some of her letters are available for inspection at the nJspma. 21. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 61–62. 22. mark W. Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (Bloomington, ind.: iuniverse, 2008), 172n38. 23. douglas and olshaker, The Cases That Haunt Us, 160.

14. The Frustration Mounts 1. Condon identified the two officers who picked him up as Bob Coar and sam leon. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 189. 2. ibid., 189–90.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 360 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 122–127

3. ibid., 190. 4. ibid., 193. it is questionable whether Walsh would have framed his response that way. more likely he would have used something similar to the dialogue used by Jim Fisher in The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 164. Fisher claims that Walsh’s response was “Come now, professor—you know exactly what i’m talking about. We don’t want to hear anymore of your shit.” There is no citation to any record for this comment. While it is more likely that Walsh would have spoken that way, it is not appropriate to create specific dialogue and quote it as a person’s exact words without a citation. i therefore choose to cite Condon’s book while noting my skepticism rather than simply create dialogue. 5. Condon, Jafsie Tells All. 6. ibid. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. ibid. 10. ibid., 196. 11. ibid., 197. 12. ibid. 13. ibid. 14. Jim Fisher continues this conversation with Condon insisting that lindbergh was his friend and demanding to know why Walsh said otherwise. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 165. Condon does not mention this part of the conversation. instead, he just states that he was shocked by the statement, but made no comment and sat down. 15. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 198. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. ibid. This is an unlikely response to give a policeman, but it fits perfectly with Condon’s incredible ego and opinion of himself. 19. ibid., 199. 20. ibid. 21. ibid. 22. ibid., 204–5. 23. ironically, this is not only the same courthouse in which Bruno richard hauptmann was tried, but lloyd Fisher was also one of hauptmann’s attorneys. 24. The section of law under which Curtis was charged was section 13b of the new Jersey Crime laws. 25. Waller, Kidnap, 159. 26. The ultimate charge against Bruno richard hauptmann was also a contortion of new Jersey law as will be discussed later in this book. 27. Waller, Kidnap, 160. 28. ibid. 29. ibid., 161. 30. Curtis would later be resentenced to a $1,000 fine with no jail time in return for lloyd Fisher dropping his appeal. This occurred on november 6, 1932. obviously, there were serious concerns by the judge and district attorney’s office that the shell game charge would not withstand judicial scrutiny. 31. Waller, Kidnap, 160. 32. ibid., 176. interestingly, there are no reports on the roanoke matter at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. The only reference materials are George Waller’s excel-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 127–136

/355348t

| 361 |

lent book and some newspaper articles. since Waller’s account is quite thorough and not contradicted by the newspapers, i have chosen to cite his work. 33. ibid., 176–77. 34. ibid. 35. ibid. 36. ibid., 177–78. 37. ibid., 178. 38. ibid. 39. ibid., 178–79. 40. ibid., 179.

15. Shoenfeld and Koehler 1. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 164. 2. ibid., 165. 3. dudley shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 48. 4. ibid., 48–49. 5. ibid. 6. ibid., 51. it would appear that Finn got the last laugh because shoenfeld writes that he showed the copies of the ransom notes to Finn despite being asked not to do so. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. ibid. 10. most conversations about the lindbergh case inevitably turn toward John Condon. even mark Falzini, the archivist at the new Jersey state police museum and archives, once commented to me that he believes that the entire case revolves around John Condon. he would not express an opinion as to hauptmann’s guilt or innocence or Condon’s credibility. 11. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 52. 12. a copy of dr. shoenfeld’s report is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). moreover, dr. shoenfeld goes into considerable detail in his conclusions and theories in his book, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case. 13. The possibility of incarceration is discussed in detail in shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 72. 14. Waller, Kidnap, 146–47. 15. The numbering of the pieces of the ladder is set forth in arthur Koehler’s reports. Copies of these reports are available for inspection at the nJspma. moreover, mr. Koehler wrote a magazine article that incorporates his findings. arthur Koehler, “technique used in tracing the lindbergh ladder,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 27 (Jan.–Feb. 1937): 712–24. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. ibid. 19. ibid. 20. ibid. 21. ibid.; Waller, Kidnap, 193.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 362 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 136–142

22. Koehler, “technique used.” 23. ibid. 24. ibid. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. ibid. 28. ibid.; Waller, Kidnap, 205. 29. Koehler, “technique used”; Waller, Kidnap, 205. 30. Waller, Kidnap, 208–10. This story also appeared in the New York Times, oct. 3, 1934, 5. 31. Waller, Kidnap, 208–10; New York Times, oct. 3, 1934. 32. New York Times, oct. 3, 1934, 5. 33. see testimony of selma Kohl, February 8, 1935, 4196–97; testimony of henna Fisch, February 8, 1935, 4177. 34. Waller, Kidnap, 208–10. This story also appeared in the New York Times, oct. 3, 1934, 5. 35. Waller, Kidnap, 208–10; New York Times, oct. 3, 1934, 5. 36. There has been some reference to this evidence in various internet discussion boards, but the document has never to my knowledge been published in any books or prominent articles on the subject.

16. The Trail of Gold 1. FBi summary report, part i, 17. 2. The denomination of the bills, dates, and locations of the finds, after april 4, 1932, according to the FBi summary report, part i, were: $5 at the Bank of manhattan on april 14, 1932; (2) $5 at Central hanover Bank & trust on may 19, 1932; (3) $5 at Chase national Bank on may 19, 1932; (4) $5 at the 1st national Bank on Wall street on may 23, 1932; (5) $5 at Chase national Bank on June 6, 1932; (6) $5 at drydock savings Bank on June 16, 1932; (7) $5 at mount Vernon trust Company on June 30, 1932; (8) $5 at Chase national Bank on July 13, 1932; (9) $5 at manufacturer’s trust Company on august 2, 1932; (10) $5 at Central hanover Bank and trust on august 16, 1932; (11) $5 at First national Bank on august 24, 1932); (12) $5 at Central hanover Bank and trust on september 14, 1932; (13) $5 at Chase national Bank on october 6, 1932; (14) $5 at Federal reserve Bank on october 15, 1932; (15) $10 (gold note) at Guaranty trust Company on october 22, 1932; (16) $20 at Central hanover Bank and trust on october 26, 1932; (17) $10 at national City Bank on october 28, 1932; (18) $10 at Guaranty trust Co. on october 29, 1932; (19) $5 at national City Bank on november 10, 1932; (20) $5 at Central hanover Bank and trust on november 11, 1932; (21) $5 at Brooklyn edison Company on november 19, 1932; (22) $5 at Chase national Bank on november 21, 1932; (23) $5 at Chase national Bank on november 29, 1932; (24) $5 at Central hanover Bank and trust on december 6, 1932; and (25) $10 at Guaranty trust Co. on december 22, 1932. 3. FBi summary report, part i, 226. 4. ibid. 5. presidential executive order 6102, april 5, 1933. 6. FBi summary report, part i, 232. 7. ibid., 233–36. 8. a copy of the original deposit slip is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 9. FBi summary report, part i, 263.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 142–143

--

/355348t

| 363 |

10. ibid. 11. ibid. 12. ibid., 267. 13. ibid. 14. ibid., 268. 15. ibid. 16. ibid. 17. ibid. 18. ibid., 269. 19. ibid., 275. 20. ibid., 278. 21. ibid., 277. 22. in addition to the FBi reports, there are a whole series of reports from the new Jersey state police concerning the investigation and interrogation of duane William Bacon. They include: (1) investigation of henry ellerson and duane Bacon, July 23, 1934, by lieutenant Keaten; (2) interview of duane Bacon, January 3, 1934, by Corporal leon; (3) investigation of india Zillah, november 17, 1933, by Corporal leon; (4) investigation of india Zillah, november 7, 1933, by detective paterson; (5) investigation of statement made by duane Bacon, december 8, 1933, by Corporal leon; (6) memorandum for detective Bureau, december 4, 1933, by Captain snook; (7) investigation of relatives of duane Bacon, alias duane Baker, november 28, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (8) investigation of anthony paglia, november 24, 1933, by detective patterson; (9) investigation of Joe or tony piazzio, november 21, 1933, by detective patterson; (10) interview with duane Baker, november 20, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (11) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Baker, october 10, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (12) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Baker, september 28, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (13) interview of the reverend arthur F. mabon, september 19, 1933, by lieutenant Keaten; (14) photostats returned from dr. souder after being compared with the lindbergh ransom notes and the Faulkner deposit slip, september 14, 1933, by lieutenant Keaten; (15) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, october 30, 1933 and october 31, 1933, by detective patterson; (16) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, september 19, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (17) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, september 13, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (18) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, september 8, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (19) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, september 6, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (20) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, september 1, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (21) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, august 30, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (22) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, July 18, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (23) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, July 14, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (24) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, July 10, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (25) investigation in reference to duane Baker, alias Bacon, august 29, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (26) interviewing louis Carreau, august 8, 1933, by lieutenant Keaten; (27) interviewing dr. Thomson, august 4, 1933, by lieutenant Keaten; (28) investigation of the Whereabouts of duane Bacon, July 25, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (29) investigation in reference to payne l. Kretzmer and duane Baker, July 20, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; (30) interviewing patrick murray, July 7, 1933, by sergeant Zapolsky; and (31) interviewing dr. Thomson, august 4, 1933, by lieutenant Keaten. 23. noel Behn accused Jacob nosovitsky, a small-time confidence man, of being J. J. Faulkner in his book, Lindbergh: The Crime (new york: penguin Books, 1994). in fact, Behn even accused nosovitsky of being Cemetery John.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 364 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 143–149

24. The denomination of the bills and dates and locations of the finds, according to the FBi summary report, part i, were: (1) $10 at Federal reserve Bank of new york City on may 8, 1933; (2) $10 at Federal reserve Bank of new york City on may 9, 1933; (3) $5 from Chase national Bank on June 7, 1933; (4) $10 gold certificate at Federal reserve Bank of new york City on June 10, 1933; (5) $10 gold certificate at Federal reserve Bank of new york City on June 13, 1933; (6) $10 gold certificate at Federal reserve Bank of new york City on June 18, 1933; (7) $5 at First national Bank on november 20, 1933; (8) $5 at Corn exchange Bank on november 24, 1933. 25. There is one exception. a $5 bill found at the Corn exchange Bank on november 24, 1933, was traced to the pennsylvania railroad. The teller did not know who specifically passed the bill. he did notice a man who tried to exchange $5 bills a few days prior. his physical description more closely resembled that of isidor Fisch. 26. The incident at the theater and the dialogue are taken from ms. Barr’s trial testimony, January 21, 1935, 1916–28. 27. This description is taken from Cecille Barr’s written statement, dated october 3, 1934, and the FBi summary report, part i, 240. 28. This version of Condon’s sighting of Cemetery John comes from dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 215–18.

17. Bruno Richard Hauptmann 1. serial number a73978634a. multiple photographs of this bill are available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 2. The description comes from the statements of Walter lyle and John lyons, as well as the FBi summary report, part ii, 19. 3. The conversation between lyle and the man later identified as Bruno richard hauptmann is taken from lyle’s written statement to the police and his testimony at trial. 4. some sources incorrectly state that the records had the name “Bruno.” This is untrue. all of hauptmann’s records in this country identified him as “richard.” even hauptmann’s wife did not know his real first name. 5. dudley d. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 72. 6. FBi summary report, part ii, 22–23. 7. ibid., 25. 8. a copy of this photograph, negative prints, and enlargements of both are available at the nJspma. 9. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 186n5. Fisher bases his conclusion upon the word of Cornel plebani, the former archivist of the nJspma. There is no other proof offered. 10. While i was researching at the nJspma, i mentioned my study of the photograph to mark Falzini. he provided me with enlargements of the photo to see if any creases could be seen. Thinking out loud, i said it was too bad there were no enlargements of the negatives of the photo. Because the picture was so dark, the creases would be very noticeable when viewed in the negative. to my delight, mark had enlarged negatives available. 11. lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 127. he seems to base his claim on an FBi report that criticized the new Jersey investigation. here is an example of a report that should be viewed with a skeptical eye. 12. i cannot prove this theory absolutely. since this theory fits the facts and evidence completely, it would seem reasonable.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 150–155

/355348t

| 365 |

13. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 188; John douglas and mark olshaker, The Cases That Haunt Us (new york: lisa drew Book/scriber, 2000), 167. 14. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 223. 15. ibid., 223–24. 16. There are numerous police reports available at the nJspma that set forth the items found in hauptmann’s home. These items were just the first found chronologically. 17. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann, september 20, 1934, at 2:40 p.m., 15. 18. Waller, Kidnap, 224. 19. ibid., 226. 20. ibid. 21. ibid., 225–26. 22. ibid.

18. The Interrogation Begins 1. a list of the actual documents found in hauptmann’s safe deposit box is maintained by the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). additionally, there is a report from the FBi, dated september 27, 1934, from special agent W. F. serry, which also sets forth the contents. 2. FBi summary report, part ii, 29. 3. The transcripts of all of hauptmann’s interrogations are available for review at the nJspma. 4. The information about hauptmann’s service in the war is actually a composite of his interrogation and his testimony at trial (pp. 2398–400). hauptmann’s actual answers during his interrogation were choppy and incomplete. using extra information from his testimony allows the information to be more clear and thorough. however, all of the information comes directly from hauptmann. 5. This information was found in records dealing with hauptmann’s criminal history in Germany, his new Jersey state criminal record (printed many years after his death), and his records from the new Jersey state prison. 6. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann, september 19, 1934, 2. 7. The report from the Board of special inquiry, dated July 14, 1923, which contains hauptmann’s sworn testimony, is available for inspection at the nJspma. 8. ibid. 9. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann, september 19, 1934, 3. 10. ibid., 3–4. 11. ibid., 5. 12. ibid., 5–7. 13. ibid., 6. 14. ibid., 7–8. 15. ibid., 11–12. 16. ibid., 12. 17. ibid., 13. 18. ibid., 14. 19. ibid., 15. 20. ibid. 21. FBi summary report, part ii, 9–15. 22. ibid., 10–11.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 366 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 155–160

23. ibid., 13–14. 24. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann, september 19, 1934, 13–18. 25. ibid., 18. 26. ibid., 21. 27. ibid. 28. ibid., 23. 29. ibid., 17. 30. The actual chronology of events has been slightly altered. hauptmann was ordered to write prior to his statements about visiting new Jersey and his denials about Condon and reich. it is a common tactic of police interrogators to randomly change topics to confuse the subject and possibly get an inadvertent admission. however, the transcript of such an interrogation can be difficult to follow as a result. Therefore, i have altered the chronology for easier reading. The actual questions and answers come directly from the transcript as written. 31. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1994), 195, 446. 32. ibid., 446n5. 33. The City of new york police department inventory and mr. Koehler’s report are maintained and are available for inspection at the nJspma. 34. special thanks to my father, richard t. Cahill sr., for lending his knowledge and experience from many years of work involving hardware and hand tools. 35. The two other people were patrolman John mcnamera and det. Thomas Cooke. 36. This dialogue, as well as perrone putting his hand on hauptmann’s shoulder, are taken from the stenographic transcript of the lineup prepared by det. s. a. mcCaskey. 37. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptmann, september 19, 1934, 50. 38. ibid. 39. ibid., 54. 40. ibid., 58–59. 41. ibid., 59. 42. ibid. 43. The exact paragraph was: “We were not near smith hall when the robbery took place, between 6 and 12 by our time. during all the time i was out of the house, but later came home. did you not write letters to new york sending back anything that was stolen from dr. Conway? please keep those letters and papers, they will be good for something later maybe. one of the letters said, dr. sir, thank you for the bills and your money. We will send back the bills later perhaps. Where will we send them, the address we lost? Be at home every night so you will hear from us. you cannot tell when that will be.” 44. hauptmann testified that he was told to misspell the word “signature.” however, attorney General Wilentz pointed out that the word “signature” was not in any of the requested writings. 45. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 447n3. 46. ibid. 47. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptman, september 20, 1934, 2:40 p.m., 8. 48. There is a discrepancy here. during the interrogation, hauptmann said Fisch specifically asked him to put it in the closet and did so himself. at trial, hauptmann testified that Fisch only asked him to keep it safe. it was hauptmann himself who placed the box in the closet. (see trial transcript, 2446–49.) 49. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptman, september 20, 1934, 2:40 p.m., 8–9.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Notes to Pages 160–167

| 367 |

50. ibid., 2. 51. While hauptmann did say $40,000 instead of $14,000, he simply may have made an error. Throughout the transcript of the interrogation, “fourteen” and “forty” are used interchangeably. however, early in the questioning after the money was found, hauptmann was asked which he meant and he clarified fourteen. While some might suggest this was a Freudian slip suggesting that he actually had $40,000, there is no hard evidence to support that. Therefore, his references to $40,000 are in error. 52. interrogation of Bruno richard hauptman, september 20, 1934, 2:40 p.m., 2–3.

19. “I Have to Be Very Careful. The Man’s Life Is in Jeopardy” 1. ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 178–82; noel Behn, Lindbergh: The Crime (new york: atlantic monthly press, 1994), 232; Wayne d. Jones, Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame (new york: Vantage press, 1997), 272; lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 162. 2. anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 143. 3. according to the official transcript, the thirteen officers were: patrolman John mcalevy; det. James J. Kissane, det. martin monahan, det. Benjamin rosenberg, det. timothy Clune, det. Chester Cronin, det. James petrosino, det. robert Goldstein, det. andrew Zapolsky, patrolman John Kerrigan, patrolman Francis mershon, patrolman herman schwartzberg, and patrolman harry Kutner. 4. transcript of lineup at Greenwich street station, 5:30 p.m., september 20, 1934, 1. 5. ibid. 6. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 220. 7. leon G. turrou, Where My Shadow Falls (Garden City, n.y.: doubleday & Co., 1949), 122–24. 8. transcript of lineup at Greenwich street station, 5:30 p.m., september 20, 1934, 1. 9. ibid. 10. ibid., 1–2. 11. ibid., 2. 12. ibid. 13. ibid. 14. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 222. 15. Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter, 191. 16. transcript of lineup at Greenwich street station, 5:30 p.m., september 20, 1934, 2. 17. ibid., 3. 18. ibid. 19. ibid. 20. This conversation was taken from Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 223. Condon’s German was grammatically incorrect. hauptmann spoke fluent German and would not have said “auch deutsch.” he would have said “auf deutsch,” which is correct. 21. ibid., 224. 22. transcript of lineup at Greenwich street station, 5:30 p.m., september 20, 1934, 4–5. 23. ibid., 5. 24. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 220.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 368 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 168–174

25. This is an obvious typographical error. hauptmann weighed around 180 to 185 pounds. 26. This is another error by the stenographer, though understandable. since Condon was talking about climbing and running, the stenographer probably thought they were talking about exercising in a gym. however, the word “Gymnasium” in German refers to grammar school. 27. ibid., 7. 28. scaduto, Scapegoat, 114; Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter, 10; Behn, Lindbergh: The Crime, 271–72. 29. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 448n8. 30. ibid. 31. dudley shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 40. 32. This memorandum is listed as 62–3057. This memo is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). it is also available for inspection at the national archives. 33. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 57–62. 34. Gardner, The Case That Never Dies, 130–32, 172, 177, 197, and 243. 35. turrou, Where My Shadow Falls, 124. 36. Fulton oursler, “Jafsie in panama discusses new evidence,” Liberty Magazine, mar. 28, 1936, 58. 37. ibid., 62. 38. Change in personality is one of the warning factors identified by the alzheimer’s association. see www.alz.org. 39. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 225. 40. ibid. 41. ibid., 225; trial transcript, 688–91. 42. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 231–36. 43. ibid. 44. ibid. This is another exaggeration and a sentimental one at that.

20. More Pieces to the Puzzle 1. trial transcript, 2530. 2. september 25, 1934, report of Thurston h. dexter, m.d. a copy of dr. Thurston’s september 25, 1934, examination, which includes statements from hauptmann, is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 3. a copy of dr. Garlock’s report is available for inspection at the nJspma. 4. september 25, 1934, report of Thurston h. dexter, m.d., 5. 5. ibid., 1. 6. ibid., 4. 7. ibid. 8. The transcript of anna hauptmann’s interrogation by assistant district attorney Breslin on september 21, 1934, is available for inspection at the nJspma. 9. ibid., 1–2. 10. ibid., 2–3. 11. ibid., 4. 12. ibid., 4–5. 13. ibid., 6–7. The transcript contains a typographical error. mr. and mrs. henkel are spelled “hinkle.”

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 174–184

/355348t

| 369 |

14. ibid., 7. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 11. 17. ibid., 9. 18. ibid., 18. 19. ibid., 19–20. 20. ibid., 20–24. 21. it is reported by Jim Fisher in The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 221, that James Fawcett was distantly related to anna hauptmann by marriage. 22. The version of events concerning the september 24, 1934, search is based upon the trial testimony of insp. henry Bruckman and maurice W. tobin, one of the carpenters. Their testimony was taken on January 18, 1935 (trial transcript, 1730–55). 23. trial transcript, 1742–43. 24. They were serial numbers for money, but not for the ransom money. 25. trial transcript, 1736. 26. Joining Bruckman were Captain appel, detective Gilmartin, lt. arthur Keaten, Capt. J. J. lamb, assistant district attorney delagi, Charles Brodie, County detective hanley, special agent sisk of the FBi, and a stenographer named Benjamin arac. 27. statement of richard Bruno hauptmann [sic], taken at the district attorney’s office, september 25, 1934, at 11:55 a.m., 1. a copy of the entire transcript is available for inspection at the nJspma. 28. ibid., 1–2. 29. ibid., 2. 30. Bronx County Grand Jury testimony of Charles lindbergh, september 26, 1934, 5. 31. The observations and actions of lieutenant Bornmann are based upon his testimony at trial (see trial transcript, January 23, 1935, 2150–72) and an interview he gave on June 28, 1983. an audiotape of this interview is available for inspection at the nJspma. additionally, the testimonies of the two carpenters who accompanied Bornmann that day (Charles F. W. enkler and anselm Cramer) corroborate the account (see trial transcript, January 23, 1935, 2172–97). 32. trial transcript, January 23, 1935, 2155. 33. a copy of Bornmann’s report is available for inspection at the nJspma. 34. Copies of the police reports concerning this find are available for inspection at the nJspma. 35. The actual transcript of the incident was recorded by Benjamin arac and is available for inspection at the nJspma. 36. Charles a. lindbergh, Autobiography of Values, edited by William Jovanovich and Judith a. schiff (new york: harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977), 142.

21. Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey 1. detailed records and documents about hauptmann’s criminal history in Germany are available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 2. ibid. 3. Jay maeder, “The Bread Thief,” New York Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/ manual/news/bigtown/chap71.htm. 4. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 252. 5. Guard detail report of trooper hugo stockburger, november 28, 1934.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 370 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 185–193

6. W. dennis duggan, “The state of new Jersey vs. Bruno richard hauptmann: Fairness on trial,” Albany County Bar Association News Letter, Jan. 2004, 10. 7. lloyd C. Gardner, The Case That Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 404. 8. ibid., 405. 9. shirley a. Graham, “anatomy of the lindbergh Kidnapping,” Journal of Forensic Sciences 42, no. 3 (1997): 368–77. 10. This report formed the basis of an episode of Court TV—Forensic Files, which aired in may 2005. This show examined the wood and handwriting evidence. 11. Kelvin Keraga, Testimony in Wood: Analysis of the Rail 16 Evidence in the Lindbergh Kidnapping, summary report 1.2, 30–31. 12. ibid., 31. 13. anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 384–90. 14. ibid., 384–85. 15. anthony scaduto, “The lindbergh Case: is history’s Verdict Wrong?” Crime Beat, apr. 1993, 46. 16. state exhibits 302 and 303. 17. i personally compared the pictures to rail sixteen at the nJspma during one of my visits. 18. Jim Fisher, The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the Lindbergh Case (Carbondale: southern illinois univ. press, 1999), 126. 19. millard Whited’s april 26, 1932, statement is available for inspection at the nJspma. 20. millard Whited’s october 6, 1934, statement is available for inspection at the nJspma. 21. i am one such author. millar Whited is not a credible witness. 22. testimony of millard Whited from the extradition hearing of Bruno richard hauptmann, 210–13. 23. statement of millard Whited, april 26, 1932. 24. autopsy report of dr. Charles mitchell, may 12, 1932. 25. This is an important element. in order to obtain an indictment and/or a conviction, it must be established and proven that the crime occurred within the jurisdiction of the court. 26. The term “misdemeanor” refers to a lesser level of crime, as opposed to a felony. 27. State v. Wilson, 1 n.J.l. 439; 4 Blk 229; and, 1 Russ. Crimes 785. 28. The police found hauptmann’s pistol in his garage and a shotgun in his house. since hauptmann was an illegal alien, it was illegal for him to own a shotgun. additionally, president roosevelt’s executive order made it illegal to stockpile gold certificates.

22. Extradition 1. anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 401. 2. The case law in effect at the time of hauptmann’s extradition is set forth rather well by Judge hammer in his decision. see Hauptmann v. Hanley, 153 misc 61 (sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 1934). 3. transcript of extradition hearing, 1–6. 4. Christian’s testimony is found on pp. 7–15, and Katy’s testimony is found on pp. 16–18 of the official transcript. 5. transcript of extradition hearing, 21.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 193–199

--

/355348t

| 371 |

6. ibid., 22. 7. ibid., 23–24. 8. ibid., 24–25. 9. ibid., 26. 10. ibid., 26–27. 11. ibid., 28–29. 12. ibid., 29. 13. ibid., 32–34. 14. ibid., 34 and 39. 15. ibid., 41–42. 16. ibid., 44. 17. ibid., 50–51. 18. ibid., 54–55. 19. ibid., 57–58. 20. ibid., 61–62. 21. ibid., 62–63. 22. ibid., 63–65. 23. ibid., 65. 24. ibid., 65–66. 25. ibid., 189. 26. ibid., 68. 27. ibid., 71–72. 28. ibid., 73. 29. ibid., 77. 30. ibid., 78–112. 31. ibid., 95–96. 32. ibid., 114. 33. ibid., 116–17. 34. scaduto, Scapegoat, 278–80. 35. ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 222–27. 36. lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 209 and note 32. mr. Gardner notes that these records were found in the hoffman papers, Box 33, in an envelope marked “mr. Bayliss.” 37. ibid. 38. Gardner, The Case That Never Dies, 209. 39. transcript of extradition hearing, 4. 40. ibid., 5. 41. ibid., 5–6. 42. author Jim Fisher alleges in The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 262, that Wilentz was asked directly and replied, “i surely don’t have them.” however, such an exchange does not appear in the transcript and may be another example of fictitious and created dialogue that plagues his work. 43. ibid., 121–22. The items were marked as exhibit “G.” 44. ibid., 123–28. The note was entered as exhibit “h.” 45. ibid., 128–34. 46. The two ransom notes selected by Wilentz included the note that came with the package containing the sleeping suit and the note dr. Condon received on march 21, 1932. These

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 372 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 199–201

notes were specifically chosen because they made reference to the sleeping garment worn by the lindbergh baby on the night of the kidnapping. obviously, the writer of the notes came into possession of the garment by either physically taking it from the nursery or conspiring with the individual who did. either way, the notes demonstrated a link between the writer of the note and the crime in the state of new Jersey. 47. transcript of extradition hearing, 136–38. 48. ibid., 180–85. 49. ibid., 186–91. 50. ibid., 192–93. The board was entered into evidence as exhibit “a.” 51. ibid., 195. 52. author Jim Fisher claims on page 262 of The Lindbergh Case that Wilentz also called Captain lamb, lieutenant Keaten, and detective leon to the stand during this hearing. according to the official transcript of the hearing, these men did not testify. Fisher also claimed on the same page that Fawcett made a motion to recess for the day before the testimony of millard Whited for the purpose of obtaining a handwriting witness named aaron lewis. Fisher asserts that Judge hammer continued the case before allowing Whited to testify. however, the official transcripts of the hearing do not bear this out. if such a motion was made and a continuance granted, it was done completely off the official record. 53. transcript of extradition hearing, 202. 54. ibid., 203. 55. ibid., 206. 56. ibid., 213. 57. ibid., 232–36. 58. ibid., 239. 59. ibid., 239–40. 60. ibid., 241. 61. ibid. This was the oral decision of the court. The written and more formal decision of the court was issued shortly thereafter. it can be found at 153 misc. 61 (sup. Ct. Bronx County 1934). 62. transcript of extradition hearing, 242. 63. a copy of this statement is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. 64. a copy of mr. Furcht’s second statement is also available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. 65. The decision of the appellate division can be found at 242 ad 257 (1st dept 1934). 66. ibid., 258.

23. The Bull of Brooklyn 1. That same day, Joseph Furcht signed his second affidavit acknowledging that he had only guessed about hauptmann’s starting date in his first affidavit. 2. hauptmann’s version of this meeting is set forth in his unpublished autobiography and, not surprisingly, was adopted by anthony scaduto as the gospel truth. see anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 450–52. 3. hugo stockburger and other German-speaking troopers were assigned to listen to conversations between hauptmann and his wife in the hopes that he would say something incriminating. such tactics, while permissible in 1934, would not be acceptable by today’s standards.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 201–211

/355348t

| 373 |

4. report of trooper hugo stockburger, october 25, 1934, is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 5. The report of trooper stockburger, november 3, 1934, is available for inspection at the nJspma. 6. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 235. 7. report of trooper hugo stockburger, october 24, 1934. 8. Condon, Jafsie Tells All, 229–31. 9. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 267. 10. New York Daily News, oct. 25, 1934. 11. ibid. 12. more specifically, the october 26, 1934, and october 29, 1934, reports of trooper hugo stockburger. 13. report of trooper hugo stockburger, october 29, 1934. 14. report of trooper hugo stockburger, november 3, 1934. 15. report of trooper hugo stockburger, november 2, 1934. 16. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 276. 17. ibid. 18. report of trooper hugo stockburger, november 2, 1934. This statement is contrary to sir ludovic Kennedy’s claim that reilly was forced upon the hauptmanns, who preferred James Fawcett. see ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 238–40. 19. Waller, Kidnap, 277. 20. a copy of this stationery is available for inspection at the nJspma.

24. The Trial of the Century Begins 1. trial transcript, 1. 2. ibid. 3. ibid., 1–2. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 2. 6. ibid. 7. ibid., 2–3. 8. ibid., 3. 9. ibid., 3–8. 10. ibid., 8–9. 11. ibid., 9–11. 12. ibid., 10–11. 13. ibid., 11. 14. ibid., 12. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 12–13. 17. ibid., 13. 18. ibid. 19. exhibit s-1. 20. exhibit s-2. 21. exhibit s-3.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 374 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 211–216

22. exhibit s-4. 23. exhibit s-5. 24. The testimony of Walter roberts is found in the trial transcript, 14–58. 25. trial transcript, 59–61. 26. ibid., 62. 27. ibid., 63. 28. exhibit s-6. 29. exhibits s-7, s-8, s-9, s-10, s-11, and s-12. 30. trial transcript, 69–70. The flannel shirt was exhibit s-13, and the wool shirt was exhibit s-14. 31. ibid., 70. The sleeping suit was entered as exhibit s-15. 32. ibid., 71. The thumb guard was entered as exhibit s-16. 33. ibid., 75. 34. ibid., 77. 35. lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 275. 36. trial transcript, 78. lindbergh’s actual answer in the transcript was 9:25, but that is either a typographical error or a mistake that lindbergh made. The balance of testimony concerning when he ate dinner and so forth clearly shows he meant 8:25 p.m. 37. ibid., 80. 38. ibid., 81. 39. ibid., 81–82. 40. The first ransom note and its envelope were entered as exhibits s-17 and s-18. 41. The envelope was entered as exhibit s-20 and the second ransom note as exhibit s-20. 42. The transcript reveals that attorney General Wilentz actually objected to the noise being created by people trying to leave. it was actually somewhat his own fault, as he had inquired only minutes before about adjourning for the day. 43. trial transcript, 96. 44. ibid., 97–99. 45. The envelope was marked as exhibit s-21 and the notes as s-22 and s-23. 46. The envelope and letters were marked as exhibits s-24, s-25, and s-26. defense Counsel reilly would actually stipulate their entry into evidence during lindbergh’s cross-examination. 47. exhibits s-30, s-31, and s-15, respectively. 48. The note was marked as exhibit s-38. 49. The note was marked as exhibit s-39. 50. trial transcript, 109. 51. The “Boad nelly” note was exhibit s-40. 52. trial transcript, 113. 53. anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 123–25; ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter (new york: Viking, 1985), 267–68. 54. trial transcript, 117. 55. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 291. 56. trial transcript, 117–18. 57. ibid., 118. 58. ibid., 121–22. 59. ibid., 131.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Notes to Pages 216–225

/355348t

| 375 |

60. ibid., 135–36. 61. ibid., 136. 62. ibid. 63. ibid., 143; emphasis mine. 64. ibid., 186–87. 65. ibid., 202.

25. “Der Alte Ist Verrückt” 1. The other was Chief harry Wolfe. 2. trial transcript, 209–10. 3. ibid., 213–14. 4. ibid., 214–15. 5. ibid., 215–16. 6. ibid., 228. The official transcript incorrectly spells Violet’s last name as sharpe. 7. ibid., 232. 8. ibid., 245. 9. ibid., 246–47. 10. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 302. 11. an excellent description of this scene is found in ibid., 302–3. 12. trial transcript, 259–62. 13. ibid., 261. The thread was exhibit s-28. 14. The official transcript shows sixty-two pages of cross-examination. 15. trial transcript, 285–86. 16. ibid., 286. 17. ibid., 287–88. 18. The picture of Betty Gow was exhibit d-1, and the disputed photograph was exhibit d-2. 19. trial transcript, 294–95. 20. ibid., 300. 21. ibid., 303–4. 22. ibid., 305. 23. ibid., 325. 24. respectively, they were exhibits d-4, d-3, and d-5. 25. trial transcript, 336–37. 26. ibid., 345–46. 27. ibid., 348–49. 28. The photograph was entered as exhibit s-31. 29. he would also appear on January 22, 1935, January 23, 1935, and February 9, 1935. 30. trial transcript, 364. 31. ibid., 364–65. 32. ibid., 365–70. The ladder was marked as s-32 for identification. 33. The dowel pin was marked as s-33 for identification and the chisel s-34 for identification. 34. trial transcript, 383–84. 35. ibid., 385. 36. ibid., 412–15. 37. ibid., 443. 38. ibid., 445.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 376 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 226–230

39. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 289; Waller, Kidnap, 318. There is no record of this statement in the transcript. however, in the darkness, it is unlikely the stenographer would have been able to record it. Waller states that reilly was believed to have made the statement, but in the darkness, no one was sure. Fisher provides no citation in support. nevertheless, it is the type of comment reilly would have made, and since there is no harm to the analysis of the case one way or the other and it is truly a funny remark, i chose to include it. 40. trial transcript, 447. 41. ibid., 448. 42. ibid., 452. 43. ibid., 453. 44. ibid., 455. 45. new york department of Welfare, June 17, 1933. a copy of this letter from deputy Commissioner ruth hill is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. 46. New York Times, Jan. 9, 1935. This reference was also cited by lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 293.

26. “John Is Bruno Richard Hauptmann” 1. trial transcript, 470–71. 2. ibid., 471. 3. ibid., 472–73. 4. ibid., 479. 5. ibid., 481. 6. ibid., 481–84. 7. ibid., 484–86. 8. ibid., 488–503. 9. ibid., 512. 10. ibid., 513. 11. ibid. 12. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 323; Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 291. 13. trial transcript, 513–15. 14. ibid., 521. 15. ibid., 537. 16. Joseph perrone’s statement of may 20, 1932, which was transcribed on may 20, 1932, is available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives (hereafter cited as nJspma). 17. trial transcript, 547–48. 18. ibid., 549–52. 19. ibid., 552–53. 20. ibid., 554–56. 21. ibid., 558–62. 22. dr. John F. Condon, Jafsie Tells All (new york: Jonathan lee publishing Corp., 1936), 181. 23. trial transcript, 565–67. 24. ibid., 568–71. 25. exhibit s-41. 26. trial transcript, 573–74.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 231–238

--

/355348t

| 377 |

27. ibid., 576–80. 28. ibid., 586. 29. i have added two periods to the actual text of the letter for easier reading here. The original text is reprinted in Chapter 8 of this book. additionally, a copy of this ransom letter is available for inspection at the nJspma. 30. trial transcript, 588. 31. ibid. 32. ibid., 590. 33. ibid., 590–92. 34. ibid., 592–93. 35. ibid., 593. 36. ibid. 37. Waller, Kidnap, 328. 38. exhibits s-42, 43, 44, and 45. previously, for identification purposes, the note and envelope given to Condon, but addressed to lindbergh (s-43 and s-44), had been marked as s-25 and s-26. however, those designations were only for identification. 39. trial transcript, 600–1. 40. ibid., 602–20. 41. ibid., 622. 42. ibid., 621–24. 43. ibid., 630–31. 44. ibid., 632–33. The letter was entered as exhibit s-52, having been previously marked for identification as s-31. The brown package containing the sleeping suit was entered as s-53. The sleeping suit itself had already been entered into evidence as s-15. 45. during this testimony, the ads placed in the newspapers, the notes from the kidnapper, and the envelopes they arrived in were entered into evidence as exhibits s-54 through s-69. 46. trial transcript, 650–61. The note was entered as exhibit s-70. 47. ibid., 61. 48. ibid., 670–72. 49. ibid., 673. 50. ibid., 674. 51. The handwriting sample was entered as exhibit d-7. 52. ibid., 685. 53. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 294. 54. trial transcript, 686–87. 55. ibid., 688–90. 56. ibid., 693. 57. ibid., 694. 58. ibid. 59. ibid. 60. ibid., 695. 61. ibid., 695–96. 62. ibid., 790–95. 63. ibid., 804–7; The transcript shows that reilly started to ask this question and was interrupted by an objection from the attorney general. The objection was overruled, and reilly asked the question again. The interrupted question and the objection have been deleted, and the question has been slightly modified for clarity. 64. ibid., 809.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 378 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 239–245

27. Paper Evidence 1. trial transcript, 825. 2. ibid., 825–29. 3. ibid., 829–30. 4. ibid., 834–35. 5. ibid., 834. 6. ibid., 839. 7. ibid., 841–44. 8. ibid., 846–47. 9. ibid., 847. 10. ibid. 11. ibid., 849–50. 12. ibid., 851; marked d-10 for identification by the court. 13. ibid., 853–80; marked as exhibits s-72 through s-87. 14. ibid., 877–79. These exhibits were marked s-88 through s-96. 15. trial transcript, 883–85. entered as exhibit s-99. 16. entered as exhibit s-101. 17. trial transcript, 886–89. 18. ibid., 890–92. 19. ibid., 897. 20. ibid., 938–40. entered as exhibits s-97 and s-98. 21. ibid., 941–44. 22. ibid., 947–48 23. ibid., 1006–07. 24. New York Post, Jan. 12, 1935. 25. report of trooper deGaetano, February 2, 1935. 26. report of trooper deGaetano, February 3, 1935. 27. trial transcript, 1012. 28. ibid., 1052–54. 29. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 300. Fisher cites dudley d. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 205. however, no such statement is listed on page 205 of that work. more likely, the alleged quote comes from a misreading of page 345 in George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961). Waller claims that reilly believed alexander’s motive was a hollywood contract, but never stated that reilly made this accusation in open court. 30. trial transcript, 1077–78. 31. The disagreement between reilly and his colleagues in this area is noted by: Waller, Kidnap, 346; Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 301. 32. trial transcript, 1177 and 1248–49. 33. ibid., 1272–73. 34. ibid., 1282–83, 1304–05, 1343, and 1389–90. 35. ibid., 1296.

28. “He Is Conceding the Defendant to the Electric Chair!” 1. trial transcript, 1433–53. 2. ibid., 1453–55.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 245–251

--

/355348t

| 379 |

3. ibid., 1463–64. 4. ibid., 1464–65. 5. ibid., 1476–78. 6. ibid., 1481. 7. ibid., 1478–81. 8. The death certificate was certified by the new Jersey state Board of health and was therefore admissible under section 28 of the state of new Jersey evidence acts, a point noted by assistant district attorney peacock during the trial. (see trial transcript, 1478–79.) 9. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 313. 10. trial transcript, 1482. 11. ibid., 1483. 12. ibid., 1483–88. 13. ibid., 1487. 14. ibid., 1491. 15. ibid., 1497. 16. The actual transcript has an extra question and answer not included here. mitchell either did not hear the question or asked for a clarification. once the question was made clear, he gave his answer. For the sake of brevity, the testimony has been condensed slightly. 17. trial transcript, 1503–4. 18. ibid., 1505–6. 19. stuart W. Craigin, longstreet hinton, stephen C. reynolds, henry e. schneider, William F. Wilkinson, hiram e. manville Jr., Francis Bartow, Thomas tring, daniel r. Bowen, William echtermauer, and John helmich. 20. trial transcript, 1522. 21. interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, Wilentz did not have lyons point out hauptmann in open court. instead, he just asked lyons if he had seen the defendant sometime in september 1934. This is, frankly, incorrect procedure, and reilly or a co-counsel should have objected. 22. trial transcript, 1522–26. 23. ibid., 1526–29. The gold certificate was entered as exhibit s-168. 24. trial transcript, 1530–34. The two witnesses were mirian John ozmec and William r. strong. 25. trial transcript, 1577–80. 26. dudley shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 217. 27. Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 315; George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 351; ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 281–82; and anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 149–50. 28. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 217. 29. scaduto, Scapegoat, 149–50. 30. Wayne d. Jones, Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame (new york: Vantage press: 1997), 456–58. 31. trial transcript, 1583–85. 32. ibid., 1588–90. 33. ibid. 34. The description of hauptmann’s demeanor and physical appearance during this outburst come from shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 220.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 380 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 251–257

35. Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter, 282. 36. scaduto, Scapegoat, 151. 37. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 220n36. 38. trial transcript, 1590. 39. ibid., 1599. 40. ibid., 1601–5.

29. The Prosecution Gains Momentum 1. trial transcript, 1629–41. 2. ibid., 1644–45. The plane was entered into evidence as exhibit s-177. 3. trial transcript, 1647–51. The money and newspaper were entered as exhibits s-178 and s-179. 4. trial transcript, 1655–62. The money, rags, newspapers, and shellac can were entered as exhibits s-181 through s-195. 5. trial transcript, 1665–66. 6. ibid., 1673–75. 7. ibid., 1682–88. 8. ibid., 1690–92. 9. ibid., 1708–10. as a side note, i learned during the research and preparation of this book of a connection between Walter lyle and my family. Walter’s brother, Frank lyle, lived in my hometown of Kingston, new york, and married margaret richardson, the daughter of Thomas richardson. Thomas richardson’s sister was ellen richardson doyle, my great-grandmother. obviously, we are not truly related, but there is definitely a connection between the families and the City of Kingston. This was not the only connection my family had to the lindbergh kidnapping case. When i told my grandmother that i was writing this book, she told me that her late husband, matthew V. Cahill, had been friendly with david Wilentz. neither connection prompted me to research this case or write this book. They are just interesting tidbits of information i have learned over the years. 10. trial transcript, 1710–13. 11. ibid., 1713–23. The witnesses were James petrosino and James Cashman. 12. trial transcript, 1723–40. 13. The gun was largely irrelevant anyway. There was and remains no evidence that the gun was used in any manner during the kidnapping. offering the gun into evidence or even mentioning it would have been highly prejudicial to the defendant with little probative value. 14. trial transcript, 1740–43. 15. ibid., 1743. 16. ibid., 1755–67. 17. ibid., 1766–67. 18. ibid., 1771–1803. The witnesses were William mulligan, Joseph h. Burkard, harry trister, and herman riedrich. 19. trial transcript, 1804–21. 20. ibid., 1822–80. 21. ibid., 1881. 22. ibid., 1897–99. 23. ibid., 1900–1907. 24. ibid., 1907.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 257–264

--

/355348t

| 381 |

25. transcript of extradition hearing, 116–17. 26. trial transcript, 1916–18. 27. ibid., 1919–27. 28. ibid., 1929–31.

30. The State Rests 1. trial transcript, 1943–44. The chisel was entered as exhibit s-210. 2. ibid., 1945. The changes were the replacement of the original nails with metal clips, a few cut marks, written numerals of identification, and some white tacks added to the ladder. 3. trial transcript, 1945–55. The three pieces of the ladder were entered together as exhibit s-211. 4. trial transcript, 1955–56. The dowel pin was entered as exhibit s-212. 5. trial transcript, 1960–62. The actual record has never been found and is considered missing. it is not among the evidence still maintained by the new Jersey state police museum and archives. possibly, it might still be held by the Federal Bureau of investigation or the national archives. 6. trial transcript, 1963–68. 7. ibid., 1969–70. 8. The bill was entered as exhibit s-103. 9. trial transcript, 1971–72. 10. ibid., 1972–73. 11. The comments regarding reilly’s tone of voice are taken from dudley d. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936), 239. 12. trial transcript, 1987–90. 13. trial transcript, 2036–40. 14. ibid., 2041–59. 15. ibid., 2059–61. The photograph was entered as exhibit s-215. 16. trial transcript, 2062–124. The witnesses were: Joseph J. dorn, William m. schluter, david hirsch, and lawrence miller. 17. trial transcript, 2098–105. 18. ibid., 2130. 19. ibid., 2131. 20. see, e.g., lloyd Gardner, The Case That Never Dies (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 30. 21. Gregory ahlgren and stephen monier, Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax (Boston: Brandon Books, 1993), 54–55. 22. trial transcript, 2145–50. 23. ibid., 2150–57. The board was exhibit s-226. 24. trial transcript, 2201. 25. ibid., 2009. 26. ibid., 2013. 27. ibid., 2214–37. 28. ibid., 2238. 29. ibid., 2238–60. 30. ibid., 2262–66. 31. ibid., 2266–68. 32. ibid., 2269.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 382 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 264–273

33. Ibid., 2269–80. 34. Ibid., 2298–99. 35. Ibid., 2312. 36. Ibid., 2340. The quote has been modified for purposes of grammar. The exact words were: “Now, with reference to the distance between the rungs of the ladder, a little fellow like me would have a hard time climbing a ladder with rungs so widely separately, wouldn’t he?” 37. Ibid., 2340. 38. Ibid., 2350.

31. Hauptmann Takes the Stand 1. Trial Transcript, 2356–75. 2. Ibid., 2375. 3. Ibid., 2376. 4. Ibid., 2383–84. 5. Ibid., 2390–91. 6. Ibid., 2392–95. 7. Ibid., 2398. 8. Ibid., 2398–99. 9. Ibid., 2400. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., 2401–5. 12. Ibid., 2405. 13. Ibid., 2406. 14. Ibid., 2407–8. 15. Ibid., 2408–9. 16. Ibid., 2411–14. 17. Ibid., 2416–18. 18. Ibid., 2424–33. 19. Ibid., 2434–35. 20. Ibid., 2436–38. 21. Ibid., 2439–41. 22. Ibid., 2441. 23. Ibid., 2443–46. 24. Ibid., 2446–49. 25. Ibid., 2449–50 and 2476–84. 26. Ibid., 2450. 27. Ibid., 2451–54. 28. Ibid., 2456–62. 29. Ibid., 2463–66. 30. Ibid., 2467. 31. Ibid., 2467–68. 32. Ibid., 2468–70. 33. Ibid., 2484–87. 34. Ibid., 2488–518. 35. Ibid., 2518. 36. Ibid., 2524–33. 37. Ibid., 2527.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

/355348t

Notes to Pages 273–286

| 383 |

38. Copies of all the handwriting samples taken from hauptmann are available for inspection at the new Jersey state police museum and archives. 39. trial transcript, 2538–40. 40. ibid., 2540–41. 41. ibid., 2541–43. 42. ibid., 2544–46. 43. ibid., 2546–50. 44. ibid., 2554–61.

32. More Testimony from the Hauptmanns 1. trial transcript, 2564–69. 2. ibid., 2570. 3. ibid., 2570–73. 4. ibid., 2575–76. 5. ibid., 2576–602. 6. ibid., 2602–3. The book was eventually entered into evidence as s-261. 7. trial transcript, 2635–36. The physical description of Wilentz and his tone in general are based upon the author’s viewing of film footage of the questioning. 8. trial transcript, 2659–84. 9. ibid., 2685–88. 10. ibid., 2690–91. 11. ibid., 2693–95. 12. ibid., 2817–32. The translator’s name was George priest. 13. ibid., 2832–66. 14. ibid., 2874. 15. ibid., 2894–907. 16. The comments about the nature of hauptmann’s tone are based upon the film footage of the trial and dudley d. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal: A Psychiatric Study of the Lindbergh Case (new york: Covici Friede, 1936). 17. trial transcript, 2908. 18. ibid., 2908–17. 19. ibid., 2917. 20. ibid., 2917–18. 21. ibid., 2919. 22. ibid., 2919–20. 23. ibid., 2921–23. 24. ibid., 2925. 25. ibid., 2926–27. 26. ibid., 2933–35. 27. ibid., 2935–37. 28. ibid., 2940–41. 29. shoenfeld, The Crime and the Criminal, 314.

33. “Where Are You Getting These Witnesses? They Are Killing Me” 1. trial transcript, 2964–70. 2. ibid., 2970–74.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 384 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 286–296

3. ibid., 2974–3046. 4. ibid., 3048–51. 5. ibid., 3064–65. 6. ibid., 3067–77. 7. ibid., 3077–109. 8. prohibition, a period when the federal government outlawed the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages, was put into effect in 1920 with the passage of the eighteenth amendment to the united states Constitution. it lasted until 1933, when the twenty-first amendment was approved abolishing prohibition. Thus, louis Kiss admitted committing a crime when he acknowledged making and selling rum in 1932. 9. ibid., 3122–24. 10. ibid., 3134–36. 11. ibid., 3137. 12. ibid., 3149–51. 13. ibid., 3167–68. 14. ibid., 3168–69. 15. ibid., 3171. 16. ibid., 3196–253. 17. ibid., 3274–76. 18. ibid., 3306–7. 19. ibid., 3308–9. 20. ibid., 3312–13. 21. ibid., 3321–26. 22. ibid., 3328. (Both men would testify at the trial.)

34. The Defense Rests 1. trial transcript, 3336–37. 2. ibid., 3338–39. 3. ibid., 3338. 4. ibid., 3344. 5. ibid., 3348. 6. ibid., 3351. 7. ibid., 3352–53. 8. ibid., 3358–59. 9. ibid., 3362–63. 10. ibid., 3366–67. 11. ibid., 3370–71. 12. mark W. Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (Bloomington, ind.: iuniverse inc., 2008), 169–70n9. 13. trial transcript, 3389–91. 14. ibid., 3395. 15. ibid., 3396–97. 16. ibid., 3400–3405. 17. ibid., 3405–10. 18. ibid., 3481–88. 19. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 446. interestingly, though mr. Waller contends that the judge admonished the witness for the imitation, no such warning appears in the official transcript. The transcript does in-

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 296–301

--

/355348t

| 385 |

dicate at page 3493 that the witness brushed his hair over his forehead when he said that he did imitations of rogers on the radio. 20. trial transcript, 3511–19. 21. ibid., 3519–27. 22. ibid., 3527–34. 23. ibid., 3544–45. 24. ibid., 3551–53. 25. ibid., 3554–55. 26. ibid., 3555–59. 27. ibid., 3559–67. 28. ibid., 3569–71. 29. ibid., 3618–19. 30. ibid., 3624–28. 31. ibid., 3629–30. 32. ibid., 3635–40. 33. ibid., 3641–43. 34. ibid., 3635–46. 35. ibid., 3668–82. 36. ibid., 3683–704. 37. ibid., 3708. 38. ibid., 3717–26. 39. ibid., 3726–51. 40. ibid., 3751–58. 41. ibid., 3759. 42. ibid., 3768–70. 43. ibid., 3771–83. 44. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 356. 45. trial transcript, 3789–91. 46. ibid., 3792. 47. ibid., 3797–808. 48. ibid., 3809–10. 49. ibid., 3816–25. 50. ibid., 3834. 51. ibid., 3852–53. 52. ibid., 3859. 53. ibid., 3874–76. 54. ibid., 3877–78. 55. ibid., 3878–81. 56. ibid., 3882. 57. ibid., 3890. 58. ibid., 3894. 59. ibid., 3897–900. 60. ibid., 3906–8. 61. ibid., 3911–13. 62. ibid., 3914–15. 63. ibid., 3915–17. 64. ibid., 3918–23. 65. ibid., 3919–20. 66. ibid., 3926–27.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 386 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 302–308

67. ibid., 3939. 68. ibid., 3940–62. 69. ibid., 3981. 70. ibid., 4014–15. 71. ibid., 4019. The grammatical error is part of the direct quote from the transcript. 72. ibid., 4022. 73. ibid., 4033–47. 74. ibid., 4039. 75. ibid., 4051. 76. ibid., 4055.

35. Rebuttal and Summations 1. one of the witnesses, Fred h. schultz, was withdrawn by Wilentz after three questions. Because his testimony was completely irrelevant, i chose not to detail it. 2. trial transcript, 4087–93. 3. ibid., 4093–110. 4. ibid., 4110–21. 5. ibid., 4122–29. 6. ibid., 4129–34. 7. ibid., 4134–58. 8. The documents were marked for identification purposes as s-304. The promissory note was marked for identification as s-305. 9. The interpreter was George madison priest. 10. trial transcript, 4158–78. 11. ibid., 4178. This is German for “do you understand english?” 12. trial transcript, 4178. 13. ibid., 4178–93. 14. ibid., 4193–94. 15. ibid., 4196–200. 16. ibid., 4200–4204. 17. trial testimony, 4205–67. 18. ibid., 4267–72. 19. ibid., 4272–79. 20. see the testimony of peter sommer (trial testimony, 3274–336) and anna Bonesteel (trial testimony, 3387–99). 21. trial testimony, 4279–85. 22. ibid., 4285–309. 23. ibid., 4309–21. 24. ibid., 4322–24. 25. ibid., 4324. 26. ibid., 4330–31. in the exact quote, rosencrans misspoke and said the word “defense” instead of “state” or “prosecution.” i made the change in brackets to make the statement clear and consistent with what he was actually asking the judge. 27. trial transcript, 4354. 28. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 461. 29. trial transcript, 4687. 30. ibid., 4687–88.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 309–316

--

/355348t

| 387 |

31. ibid., 4690–91. 32. ibid., 4692. 33. ibid., 4694. 34. ibid., 4695. 35. ibid., 4697. 36. ibid., 4697. 37. ibid., 4700. 38. ibid., 4705. 39. ibid. 40. ibid. 41. ibid., 4705–6. 42. ibid., 4714. 43. ibid., 4713–14. 44. ibid., 4715. 45. ibid. 46. ibid., 4719. 47. Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 364. 48. While it is certainly possible, i will not accuse a fellow attorney of such dereliction of legal ethics without good cause and evidence. 49. trial transcript, 4720. 50. ibid., 4720–21. 51. ibid., 4727–29. 52. ibid., 4730–31. 53. ibid., 4741. 54. ibid., 4748. 55. ibid., 4751. 56. ibid., 4786–87.

36. Wilentz Closes 1. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 467. 2. trial transcript, 4359–60. Wilentz actually butchered the verse. The proper verse from leviticus 17 is “and he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.” 3. ibid., 4360. 4. one author, noel Behn, argues that J. J. Faulkner was a forger named Jacob novitsky. he has absolutely no evidence to support the claim. 5. trial transcript, 4366. 6. ibid., 4367. 7. ibid. 8. ibid., 4367–68. 9. ibid., 4368. 10. ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnapping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 333. 11. trial transcript, 4369–70. 12. ibid., 4369–75. 13. ibid., 4377. 14. ibid., 4379. 15. ibid., 4379–80.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 388 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 316–322

16. ibid., 4380. 17. ibid., 4381–82. This was also improper commentary. red Johnson did not testify. The state’s investigation into red Johnson’s background was never entered into evidence. during closing remarks, defense counsel and the prosecutor are prohibited from referring to matters that have not been entered into evidence. 18. ibid., 4384. 19. ibid. 20. Wilentz was referring to new york state supreme Court. in new york, the supreme Court is the trial level. initial appeals go to the appellate division. The highest level court in new york is the new york state Court of appeals. Without this explanation, some jurors may have thought he meant the supreme Court of the united states. 21. trial transcript, 4385. 22. to be fair to reilly and the other defense attorneys, many of these legal points were disputed at the time of the trial. For example, it was not until 1965 that the united states supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. California (380 us 609) that a defendant’s silence or refusal to testify could not be used against him. so, while it is certainly clear that the attorney general’s remarks would be improper under today’s standards, it is not as crystal clear that said finding would have been made in 1935. 23. trial transcript, 4387. 24. ibid., 4387–88. 25. ibid., 4393–94. 26. ibid., 4397. 27. ibid., 4398. 28. ibid., 4398–99. 29. ibid., 4400. 30. ibid., 4400–4002. 31. ibid., 4403. 32. ibid., 4403–4006. 33. ibid., 4406. 34. ibid., 4406. 35. ibid. 36. ibid., 4407. 37. ibid. 38. ibid. 39. ibid., 4411. 40. ibid., 4415–16. i have made some grammatical changes to the actual transcript. The way the stenographer recorded this statement involved clumsy grammar that took too much away from its actual meaning. i thus made some corrections, but left the run-on nature of the sentence because i think it helps capture the manner in which Wilentz spoke. 41. ibid., 4416. 42. ibid., 4431–47. 43. ibid., 4447–67. 44. ibid., 4453. 45. ibid., 4488. i have again changed the grammar of the transcript. The content is the same, but the actual transcript is difficult to read due to poor and clumsy grammar. 46. ibid., 4488. The grammar of the transcript has been corrected, but the content is the same. 47. ibid., 4491. 48. ibid., 4493.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Notes to Pages 322–328

--

/355348t

| 389 |

49. ibid. 50. Waller, Kidnap, 472; Jim Fisher, The Lindbergh Case (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 1987), 367. 51. trial transcript, 4494. 52. ibid. 53. Waller, Kidnap, 472; Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, 367; see also New York Times, Feb. 13, 1935, 15. according to the article from the New York Times, Burns was sent to his home under a police guard. he also was known to media for his efforts on behalf of his brother, robert elliott Burns, an escapee from a Georgia chain gang. 54. trial transcript, 4495–96.

37. The Verdict 1. trial transcript, 4497–98. 2. ibid., 4498. 3. ibid., 4499. 4. ibid., 4499–500. 5. ibid., 4503. 6. ibid., 4500–4503. 7. ibid., 4503–6. 8. ibid., 4504–6. 9. ibid., 4506. 10. ibid. 11. ibid., 4507. 12. ibid. 13. ibid., 4509. 14. ibid. 15. ibid., 4510–12. 16. ibid., 4513–16. 17. The exceptions to the charge are set forth in the ibid., 4521–48. 18. anthony scaduto, Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann (new york: putnam, 1976), 220. 19. lloyd C. Gardner, The Case That Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping (new Brunswick, n.J.: rutgers univ. press, 2004), 355. 20. ludovic Kennedy, The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (new york: Viking, 1985), 337. 21. see State v. Overton, 85 n.J.l. 287; and State v. Corrado, 113 n.J.l. 53. 22. State v. Hauptmann, 115 n.J.l. 412 (1935). 23. i have found only one example of such a newspaper, an “extra” edition of the Erie Dispatch Herald with the headline “hauptmann Gets life.” to preserve this rare find, along with the second “extra” newspaper issued only minutes later, i donated them to the new Jersey state police museum and archives in memory of my grandmother, Corinne d. Cahill. These rare newspapers are available for inspection at the archives. according to the correction article, only a few hundred of the “hauptmann Gets life” issues were actually printed. photographs of both of the newspapers appear in mark Falzini and James davidson, New Jersey’s Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial (mount pleasant, s.C.: arcadia publishing, 2012), 113. 24. George Waller, Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case (new york: The dial press, 1961), 491.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 390 |

--

/355348t

notes to pages 329–345

25. The official transcript on appeal lists the verdict of guilty, but does not contain the actual transcript of the report of said verdict. The new Jersey state police museum and archives does have the actual transcript from the verdict and sentencing. The pages from that transcript are 7886–94. 26. New York Times, Feb. 14, 1935. 27. hauptmann’s private reaction to the verdict has been referenced in numerous works and newspaper articles. The only original account by an eyewitness appears to be the February 14, 1935, report of lt. allen smith, one of the guards who escorted hauptmann back to his cell.

Epilogue 1. State v. Hauptmann, 115 n.J.l. 412, 180 a. 809 (1935). 2. Hauptmann v. New Jersey, 296 u.s. 649 (1935). 3. Hauptmann v. Wilentz, et al., 570 F.supp. 351 (u.s. district Court for new Jersey 1983). 4. Hauptmann v. Wilentz, et al., 770 F.2d 1070 (3rd Circuit 1985). 5. i am aware that the new Jersey state supreme Court ruled on this specific argument and affirmed the charge and sentence. i vehemently, but respectfully, disagree with the court’s ruling. 6. trial transcript, 4406. 7. i am not the first to find this document. it has been referenced for some time at http:// www.lindytruth.org/lindy3.htm, a Web site dedicated to proving hauptmann guilty of the crime. i contacted the owner of this site to learn where he found the document, but he declined to provide this information. a few weeks later, i found this document at the new york City municipal archives. 8. robert Zorn, Cemetery John: The Undiscovered Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping (new york: The overlook press, 2012). 9. ibid., 228. 10. another news source claims the table was purchased in 1938. as there are no receipts, the exact year of purchase remains unknown. 11. New York Times, “This Case never Closes,” June 22, 2003. 12. mark Falzini, “Clarifications Concerning the table evidence,” march 11, 2005, as posted on the lindbergh Kidnapping discussion Board, http://lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/ index.cgi?board=mark&action=display&thread=324. 13. New York Times, “This Case never Closes.” 14. i have covered many of the people involved in this case. For more information about these and others, i strongly recommend reading mark Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes of Fame (Bloomington, ind.: iuniverse inc., 2008). 15. William h. manz, “owls shouldn’t Claw at eagles: Big ed reilly and the lindbergh Kidnapping Case,” New York State Bar Association Journal 77, no. 5 (June 2005): 10–19. 16. ibid. 17. C. lloyd Fisher, “The Case new Jersey Would like to Forget,” Liberty Magazine, aug. 1, 1936, aug. 8, 1936, aug. 15, 1936, aug. 22, 1936, aug. 29, 1936, sept. 5, 1936, and sept. 12, 1936. 18. Barry levy, “Cracking the lindbergh Kidnapping Case,” American History 40, no. 2 (June 2005): 32–39 and 76. 19. James p. duffy, Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt (Washington, d.C.: regnery publishing inc., 2010). 20. reeve lindbergh, No More Words: A Journal of My Mother (new york: simon & schuster, 2001). 21. ibid., 157.

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Index

--

/355348t

| 391 |

index

achenbach, ella, 254–55 aiello, Charles, 155 aldinger, Fred, and mother, 154 alexander, hildegard olga, 242, 268 alibis, hauptmann’s: anna hauptmann and, 282–85; challenges to, 193–94, 196–97; on day of kidnapping, 267, 271–72, 282, 293, 306; defense claiming, 267–68, 270, 272; in fighting extradition, 193, 196; in judge’s instructions to jury, 326; Kloppenburg on, 293–94; lies about ransom delivery dates, 282, 293–96, 304, 306; majestic hotel records and, 196–98, 201, 270; prosecutor’s rebuttal witnesses on, 304, 306; on ransom delivery date, 267, 270; for spending ransom money, 268, 272, 295; witness on day of kidnapping’s, 199, 270, 286–89, 301, 306 allen, William, 95, 98, 218, 245 appeals, hauptmann’s, 200, 332 appel, Charles, 178 arac, Benjamin, 256 Bacon, duane William, 143 Baier, peter, 332 Banks, septimus, 45, 92, 344; Violet sharp and, 112, 115, 121 Barr, Cecile: defense denying identification by, 268, 272, 295–96; description of man spending gold note, 144, 155; identification of hauptmann spending ransom money, 178–79, 191, 257–58, 260 Beattie, mary, 3 Betts, harold s., 305 Biggs, howard, 208, 209 Bitz, irving, 24–25, 32–33 Bollard, elmer, 338–39 Bolmer, William Brevoort, 302–3 Bonesteel, anna, 295 Bornmann, lewis, 11, 135, 188, 224, 306; accused

of fabricating ladder rail, 187–88; discovery of board in hauptmann’s attic matching ladder’s, 179–81, 184, 262; evaluating call about kidnapping, 8; kidnapper’s ladder and, 14–15, 59, 223, 259; with Koehler searching for specific wood supplier, 137, 139; postrial life, 343 box, in ransom delivery instructions, 40, 74, 82–83; assumptions made from, 132, 336; Breckinridge and Condon having made, 48; reich’s testimony on, 231 Breckinridge, Colonel, 65, 74; at arrival of baby’s sleeping unit, 60; on communications with kidnapper, 23, 67–68; Condon and, 41–42, 47, 57; going to Connecticut to search for baby, 87–88; grand jury testimony by, 106, 179; intermediaries with kidnapper and, 24–25, 32–33, 42; kidnapper’s communication with, 27, 30, 30–31, 50, 214; lindbergh and, 7, 126; trial testimony of, 239–40; waiting for kidnapper, 48, 69, 230 Brelsford, may, 208, 209 Breslin, edward F., 174–75, 197 Brinkert, ernest: arrest of, 116–19; Violet sharp and, 45–46, 91–92, 108–14, 117 Brinkert, mary morrisroe, 117 Bronx: grand jury and, 138, 178; hauptmann living in, 147, 166; map showing important locations in, 252–53; ransom bills used in, 144; speculation of kidnapper’s neighborhood, 132 Bronx County Jail, hauptmann in, 173–74 Bronx district attorney, investigating extortion charges, 106, 129 Bronx Home News: assumption of kidnapper’s neighborhood and, 131; Condon offer in, 35, 37, 58, 69, 217, 312; denying knowledge of “Jafsie” identity, 64–65; hauptmann denying reading, 157; messages to kidnapper in, 57, 64, 89, 232–33, 236

| 391 |

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 392 |

--

/355348t

index

Brown, detective, 127 Bruce, edwin, 92–94 Bruckman, henry, 284; finding Condon’s number in hauptmanns’ closet, 199, 255–56; searching for more ransom money, 176–77, 179 Bruckman, oscar John, 298 Bryant, Joseph, 127–28 Budreau, alfred, 305 burglary charge: judge’s definition of, 326; to use felony murder rule, 190–91, 208, 333 burlap sack, found near baby’s body, 97 Burns, Vincent, 322–23 Burrage, Guy hamilton, 43, 106–7, 125 Byrne, Brendan, 337 Capone, al, 24–25, 203 Carlstrom, elvert, 286–87, 304 cars: hauptmann’s, 152, 225–26, 265; neighbors questioned about suspicious, 19–20, 293 Case, liscome, 208, 209 The Cases That Haunt Us. See douglas, John Cassidy, harry m., 243–44 Cemetery John, 145. See also hauptmann, Bruno richard; kidnapper(s); artist’s sketch of, 86, 87; Condon identifying hauptmann as, 163–64, 169, 232–34; Condon meeting at ransom delivery, 81–82; Condon not identifying Brinkert as, 116–17; Condon recording imitation of voice of, 259–60, 318; Condon talking to hauptmann as, 202–4; description of, 81, 83, 147, 234; description of man passing ransom bills matching, 143–44; footprint left in cemetery by, 88–89, 260; hauptmann denying being, 276; lindbergh identifying voice of, 179, 191; promising to send baby’s sleeping unit, 56–57, 60; schoenfeld’s profile of, 130–32; talking to Condon, 55–57; telling of group of six, 55–57 chisel, found near ladder, 9–10, 16, 264, 297; as evidence, 223, 259; hauptmann missing one from set, 156, 264; Wilentz suggesting as murder weapon, 320; wood vs. cold, 156 Cholowski, antonia (“pig lady”), 19 Christensen, oscar hilbert, 304 closet, in hauptmanns’ home, 160, 175–77, 176; anna not seeing strange box in, 194, 283–84; claim of storing Fisch’s shoebox in, 160, 257, 271; Condon’s number found on door, 177–78, 181, 195, 199, 204, 255–57; hauptmann and writing on door, 279, 281–82 Coar, robert, 96 Cody, William, 258, 260 Coleman, Greg, 178 common-law burglary. See burglary Condon, John F., 34–35, 35. See also Jafsie Tells All (Condon); alexander seeing hauptmann watching, 242; asking hauptmann to read

passages, 165, 167; baby’s sleeping unit and, 60, 233; belief in existence of kidnapper’s accomplices, 65, 68–69, 170; Bronx Home News ad by, 36–37, 89, 236–37; communications with kidnapper, 36–37, 63; confidence about identifying kidnapper, 106; credibility of, 131, 217, 321, 325, 332; in Curtis’s stories about kidnappers, 93; death of, 172; description of Cemetery John, 86, 144; finding footprint, 88; Giesslers’ links to, 142; grand jury testimony by, 107–8, 178; hauptmann denying interactions with, 156, 272, 275; hauptmann living near, 147, 166; hauptmann’s lineup and, 163– 68, 171; hoping to get confession from hauptmann, 171–72, 202–4; identifying hauptmann as Cemetery John, 167, 169–71, 204–5, 232–34, 268; “Jafsie” identity of, 42, 64–65, 69, 90; kidnapper choosing as intermediary, 37–38, 39, 41, 216–17; kidnapper’s communications with, 38, 40–42, 41, 47–53, 51–52, 60, 66, 214, 228–31, 239–40; lindbergh and, 38–40, 88, 217, 229–30; meeting hauptmann at jail, 164–68, 171, 201–5; meetings with Cemetery John, 51–52, 54–57, 214–15, 230, 237–38; negotiating about ransom amount, 81, 86–87, 103, 130; not identifying Brinkert as Cemetery John, 116–17; number on hauptmanns’ closet door, 177, 177–78, 195, 199, 204, 255–57; police investigating, 85, 103, 122–24; possible woman accomplice and, 68–69; postrial life, 344; ransom delivery and, 64, 74, 76, 78–82, 86, 231; ransom delivery instructions given to, 50–52, 76–77, 80; recording imitation of Cemetery John’s voice, 259–60, 318; reilly trying to discredit, 217, 296–97, 311–12; reporters and, 65, 90–91; rumors and speculations about, 65, 169–71, 217, 237, 239, 312; spotting Cemetery John, 145; tendency to exaggerate, 42, 48, 55, 57, 82; trial testimony of, 230–38, 321; wanting proof of baby’s well-being, 42, 64, 67, 103 Condon, mora, 47, 230 confessions, 323, 331; Condon hoping to get from hauptmann, 171–72, 202; hauptmann’s lack of, 160–61, 181, 273, 338; inauthenticity of “table board confession,” 338–41 Conlon, John, 99–100 Costello, Frank, 33 Cramer, anselm, 255, 262 Cravatt, robert, 207, 209 Cross, austin & ireland lumber Company, 137–39 Curtis, John hughes, 43–45, 206, 217; Cemetery John on, 56–57; claiming to be intermediary with kidnappers, 69–70, 92–94; criminal charges against, 107, 124–26; dobson-peacock and, 69–70, 106–7; motives of, 105–6, 125–26; police breaking down stories of, 103–6

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Index de Bisschop, Charles, 302, 306 death certificate, lindbergh baby’s, 245–46 death penalty, 207. See also execution; hauptmann’s sentence to, 326, 329–30; reilly signaling mercy vs., 311; use of felony murder rule for, 190–91, 333; Wilentz advocating, 314, 322 defense, hauptmann’s. See also alibis, hauptmann’s: conspiracy theory of kidnapping of, 291–92, 306–7, 310–13, 317, 319, 325; trying to blame Fisch for kidnapping, 290–92, 298, 301, 305–6; trying to challenge wood evidence, 301–3, 306; trying to discredit identifications, 268, 288–89, 293, 300; weakness of, 300 defense team, hauptmann’s, 173. See also reilly, edward J.; cross-examination of handwriting experts, 243–44; donations to/payments for, 316; effects of poverty on, 268, 316; Fawcett on, 175–76, 205; fighting extradition, 192–200; Fisher’s outburst at reilly, 250–51; ignoring anna after testimony, 285; jury and, 243, 326; jury selection and, 207–8; motion to dismiss by, 267; needing to humanize hauptmann, 268, 299; not objecting to Wilentz badgering hauptmann, 280; not objecting to Wilentz’s summation, 316–17, 319–20; not present during hauptmann’s questioning, 256; objecting to prosecution’s evidence, 223, 240, 254, 259; objections by, 275–76, 326; opening statement by, 210, 267–68; preparation for trial, 201, 205; on prosecution’s burden of proof, 309, 317; reilly taking over, 205–6; resting case, 303; stipulations by, 248, 249–51; summation by, 307–13 defense witnesses, hauptmann’s, 316; contradicting identifications of hauptmann, 288–89, 293; fingerprint expert as, 299; handwriting expert as, 289–90; hauptmann’s despair about, 292; lack of credibility of, 294–95, 296; professional, 291–92; trying to support alibis, 286–89 deGaetano, nuncio, 11, 14–16, 135, 225, 242 diehl, William, 200, 300 dobson-peacock, h., 43–45, 65, 125; Curtis and, 69–70, 106–7 donegan, mr., 234–35 dormer, elmira, 249, 251 dorn, Joseph J., 136 douglas, John, on Violet sharp, 112, 119 dowel pin, found near ladder, 9–10, 14, 16, 133, 223, 259 dunn, lieutenant, 8 dutt, Joseph, 292, 295 eichin, henry, 252–53 englewood estate, lindberghs’, 3, 22, 131; family’s schedule at, 18, 20; Violet sharp working at, 108, 119–20 enkler, Charles F. W., 255, 262

--

/355348t

| 393 |

epstein, Gideon, 332 ernie. See Brinkert, ernest; miller, ernest evidence, 314, 319; accusation of suppression of, 197–98; FBi and, 148, 192; flaws and defects in, 333; found in hauptmann’s house and garage, 180–81; against hauptmann’s having coconspirator, 337; items entered as, 214, 252–53, 262; items not entered as, 318; judge’s opinion of mixed into instructions to jury, 325–27; ladder made from attic board most incontrovertible, 184–85, 188, 259, 332; ladder offered into, 223, 227; left unsecured by police, 10, 14, 16, 223, 310–11; mishandling of, 15, 225; not found in hauptmann’s car, 152; nursery processed for, 14; prosecution’s summary of, 209–10, 307, 331–32; ransom money found in hauptmann’s garage entered into, 253–54; rules of, 197–98, 223, 259–60, 315, 332–33; used in extradition hearing, 192–93 execution, 311. See also death penalty; hauptmann’s, 333, 341; public’s desire for hauptmann’s, 190, 219, 311, 327, 330 extortion, hauptmann indicted for, 106, 150, 160, 173, 178–79, 254 extradition, of hauptmann, 192–200; appeal of, 200; hearing for, 198, 281, 284–85; Wilentz using against defendant, 317 Falzini, mark, 120, 294–95; on “table board confession,” 339, 341 Farber, Joseph, 303 Faulkner, J. J., link to ransom bills, 141–43, 241; hauptmann denying knowing, 156; remaining mystery, 314, 337–38 Fawcett, James m., 175–76, 204–5, 288; fighting extradition, 193–94, 196–200 FBi: Condon and, 55–57, 145; role in investigation, 129, 146, 192; staking out hauptmann’s house, 147–48 felony murder rule, 190–91, 208, 320, 333 Ferguson, detective, 127 finances, hauptmanns’, 297; defense’s claim of effects of poverty, 268, 316; hiding money from wife, 277–78; as motive for kidnapping, 334–35; trial testimony about, 256, 268, 270–73, 280–81, 283 fingerprints: experts on, 10, 59, 225, 299; Kelly taking, 11–12, 14, 225, 261–62; lack of useful, 13–14, 216; on ladder, 14, 59–60, 295–96; nursery lacking, 13, 298, 310; ransom note lacking, 11–12 Finn, James J.: postrial life, 343; role in investigation, 129, 143, 201, 240; testimony by, 178, 260; trying to catch kidnapper through ransom bills, 140, 143–44, 146, 148, 249; use of schoenfeld’s analysis, 130–32 Fisch, hanna, 305, 310

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 394 |

--

/355348t

index

Fisch, isidor, 240, 248, 254; anna hauptmann on, 175, 283; defense trying to blame for kidnapping, 290–92, 298, 301, 305–6, 312; finances of, 297–98, 300–301, 305–6; going-away party for, 294–96, 297; hauptmann claiming to have swindled by, 158, 160–61, 281; in hauptmann’s explanation of gold notes, 194, 257; hauptmann’s trial testimony about, 271, 279, 281; identified as man at st. raymond’s Cemetery, 297, 303; in judge’s instructions to jury, 325–26; items left at hauptmanns’, 283–84, 294–96, 301; return to Germany, 138, 160, 297; said to be using gold notes, 298 Fisher, C. lloyd, 246; anna’s outburst at trial and, 254; cross-examinations by, 241, 243–44, 254, 260–61; defending Curtis, 124–25; defending heier against perjury charge, 303; errors by, 241, 243, 249–51; hauptmann and, 307, 328; on hauptmann’s defense team, 206, 231, 307; opening statement by, 267–68; outburst at reilly, 249–51; postrial life, 342; questioning witnesses, 293, 298 Fisher, Jim, 119–20, 159, 182, 188, 204 Fitzgerald, James, 95–96 Flemington, new Jersey, hauptmann’s trial in, 200, 206, 219; response to aggressive trial tactics in, 222–23, 229 Foley, assistant district attorney, 179, 256, 281; confronting hauptmann with evidence, 180–81; hauptmann admitting writing on door to, 178, 279 footprints: anne’s, 11, 225; assumptions made from additional set, 22–23, 75; believed to be from “stocking feet,” 9, 11, 15, 225; discovery of additional set, 15–16; Kelly photographing, 16; left in cemetery, 88–89, 260, 318; in mud below nursery window, 8–9, 222–24; mud smudges inside possibly, 7; police errors with, 223–25; police not securing, 10, 16, 223, 310–11 Forensic Files, reviewing handwriting evidence against hauptmann, 332 Frank, William, 256 Franks, Bobby, 335–36 Fredericksen’s Bakery, in hauptmann’s alibi, 193, 269–70, 286–87, 301, 304, 306 Furcht, Joseph, 200 Gaglio, milton, 38, 40, 42; driving Condon to sourland, 229–30; waiting for kidnapper at Condon’s, 48, 50 Gardner, lloyd: accusing trenchard of bias, 326; on folds in ransom bills, 148–49; on ladder made from attic board, 185; on majestic hotel records, 197–98; on reilly declining to crossexamine mother, 212 Garlock, dr., 173 German language, 126, 131, 155; Condon speaking

to hauptmann in, 166, 171, 202; hauptmann’s conversing in, 201–2; kidnapper’s accent, 47, 49, 54; “table board confession” in, 338–41; writer assumed from ransom notes, 12, 41, 73, 336 Gow, Betty, 21, 46, 215; boyfriend of, 3–5; discovery of kidnapping, 5–6; finding baby’s thumb guard, 74–75, 260; identification of baby’s body and, 96–98, 245, 250; postrial life, 344; putting baby to bed, 4, 211–12; reilly implicating in kidnapping, 309, 312–13, 317, 319; scrutinized by police, 11, 318–19; suspicions of, 20–22; at trial, 219–22, 317 Graham, shirley a., 187 grand jury, in Bronx County, 138; investigating extortion, 106, 178–79 grand jury, in hunterdon County, new Jersey, 190–91 guns: found in hauptmann’s garage, 180–81, 195, 255, 275–76; lindbergh’s, 6, 8, 77, 215 hacker, myra Condon, 76, 239–40 hacker, ralph, 88, 230, 260 hammer, ernest e. l., 192–200 handwriting: Brinkert’s, 117–18; defense expert witness on, 289–90; experts’ opinion on, 243–44, 311, 315–16, 325; Faulkner’s on deposit slip, 142, 338; hauptmann claiming coercion in samples of, 158, 273, 322; hauptmann denying on ransom notes, 200, 272; hauptmann’s matched to ransom notes, 158–59, 162, 178, 191, 240, 243–44, 315–16, 331–32; hauptmann’s on closet door, 279, 281–82; police not causing spelling errors in hauptmann’s samples, 241, 244; on ransom notes, 142, 198–99, 301; reilly on, 234, 311, 316; “table board confession” not matching any in case, 339 harding, lou, 288–89, 306 harvey, elsie, 127–28 harvey, norman, 127–28 hauck, anthony m., Jr., 124, 190, 202, 307 hauptmann, anna schoeffler, 176; belief in husband’s innocence, 182, 341; filing wrongful death suit, 332; husband hiding money from, 277–78; husband telling about meeting Condon at jail, 201–2; in husband’s alibi, 193–94, 271–72; husband’s defense team and, 175, 205– 6; lying for husband’s alibi, 294–95; marriage of, 269–70, 279; no evidence of involvement by, 156, 337; not corroborating husband’s stories, 194, 282–85; outburst at trial, 254–55; police questioning, 150–51, 156, 174–75; public sympathy for, 283, 285; response to verdict, 329–30; trial testimony of, 282–85; watching search of garage, 159–60 hauptmann, Bruno richard, 138, 152, 337; admitting lying under oath, 274, 280; admitting

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Index spending gold notes, 149–50, 155, 249; almost all evidence pointing at, 314, 319; angry outbursts by, 251–52, 279–80; appearance of, 87, 147, 294; arraignments of, 173, 201, 205; arrest of, 163, 251–52, 253; background of, 152–53, 268–69; booking photographs of, 153; booking vs. charging at police station, 152; caught with bills from ransom, 148, 259; charges against, 190–91, 332; chisel missing from set of, 156; claim of state conspiracy against, 149, 251, 321; claiming to have told police about money, 195, 199, 305; claims of police beating, 173–74, 273; compared to descriptions of man passing gold notes, 155; Condon and, 170, 242; Condon’s identification as Cemetery John, 163–64, 167, 169–71, 232–34; Condon’s interrogation of, 164–68, 201–5; criminal record of, 152–53, 181–82, 195, 269, 274–75, 315, 320; defense team and, 205–6, 250–52, 292, 307; denying building ladder, 157, 195, 272; denying having more gold notes, 158, 160; denying kidnapping, 160, 196, 271, 282; denying knowledge of ransom, 150, 155, 160; denying writing ransom notes, 160, 200, 271; evidence used to declare innocence of, 89, 298; execution of, 331, 341; explanations of money, 149, 155–56, 254, 257, 275–76, 277–79; extortion charge against, 150, 160, 179; extradition to new Jersey, 192–200; fairness of trial of, 332–33; finances of, 157–58, 256, 270–72, 277–78, 280–81, 297; fingerprints not on ladder, 59, 295–96, 298–99; “The Fisch story” about gold notes, 160–61, 271; flaws and defects in evidence against, 148, 333; handwriting matching ransom notes, 178–79, 191, 241–44; handwriting samples by, 158–59, 240–41, 244, 290; identification in lineup, 157–58; identifications of, 188–90, 225–26, 241–42, 260–61, 268, 293–94; as illegal immigrant, 153, 183, 191, 269, 274–75, 315, 320, 333; indictments against, 179, 191; initials matching scotland yard’s interpretation of symbol, 126; jobs of, 152, 154, 194–97, 269–70 (see also majestic hotel, hauptmann’s job at); lack of confessions by, 160, 338; lindbergh identifying voice of, 181, 215, 217, 312, 332; maintaining innocence, 279, 331; marriage of, 269–70, 279; misspellings matching ransom notes, 275, 278; motives for kidnapping by, 334–35; neighbor testifying about limp after day of kidnapping, 255; other denials by, 157, 158, 228, 271, 275–76, 279; personality/behavior changes in, 174–75; playing stock market, 154, 157–58, 256–57, 271; police questioning, 152–59, 256; police staking out house of, 147–48; possible rental apartment to hold baby in, 334; prosecution’s characterization of, 309, 314–15, 320–22; quitting job, 210, 270; reilly and testimony of, 268–73, 281; response to verdict,

--

/355348t

| 395 |

328–30; on suicide watch, 182; summary of evidence against, 331–32; testimony at extradition hearing, 200; testimony of movements on day of kidnapping, 271–72; trenchard accused of bias against, 325–27; using ransom bills, 146– 47, 151; Wilentz badgering, 275–76, 278, 280, 317; Wilentz cross-examining, 248–49, 273–76, 277, 279–80, 322; writing Condon’s number on closet door, 178, 256, 281–82 hauptmann, manfried “Bubi,” 150, 341 hauptmann’s garage, 159–60, 285; explanation for hiding place in, 275–76; gun found in, 195–96; hauptmann’s explanation of money found in, 254, 271; ransom money found in, 159–60, 180–81, 195–96, 199, 253–55; searches of, 150–51, 156, 159–60, 251, 253 hauptmann’s house, 298. See also closet, in hauptmanns’ home; attic boards matching rail of ladder, 179–81, 180, 184–88, 185–86, 189, 266, 302; drawing of ladder found in, 157, 278; missing attic boards in, 261, 262, 280; searches of, 150, 156, 251, 253, 262; utilities shut off on alibi night, 294–95, 334 heier, Benjamin, 297, 303 heisshaimer, Brigitte, 344 henkel, Gerta, 174–75, 277, 279, 299, 301 henkel, Karl, 301 hess, leon, 342 heyne, hilda and otto, 297 hibbs real estate and insurance, hauptmann’s rental application with, 334 hile, augusta, 300 hirsch, david, 261 hochmuth, amandus, 225, 259, 268, 333 hockenbury, philip, 208, 209 hoerber, ottilia, 306 hoff, Bertha, 296, 305 hoffman, Governor, 331, 342–43 homes, hauptmann’s. See hauptmann’s house homes, lindberghs’, 1–3, 8. See also englewood estate, lindberghs’; sourland estate, lindberghs’ hoover, herbert, 17 hoover, J. edgar, 145, 147–48, 192 hopewell, new Jersey, 7, 154; hauptmann denying visiting, 156, 196, 271 hopewell police, 8–10. See also police horn, William F., 240, 249 hudson, erastus mead, 59, 299, 304–5 hughes, lara, 113–14 hunterdon County, new Jersey, 190–91, 246, 307. See also Flemington, new Jersey internal revenue service, and ransom money, 74, 86, 240–41 irey, elmer, 74, 86, 88

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 396 |

--

/355348t

index

Jafsie Tells All (Condon), 38, 124, 204 Joerg, Carl, 292, 295 “John.” See also Cemetery John: in Curtis’s stories, 92–93 Johnson, elmer, 118, 306–7 Johnson, henry “red,” 3–5; arrest and questioning of, 22; call to Gow by, 21–22, 236–37; efforts to clear, 56, 312; Gow questioned about, 219–22; reilly implicating in kidnapping, 310, 312, 317 Jones, John J., 127 Jones, Wayne, 250 Jung, erna and henry, 305 jury, for hauptmann’s trial, 209, 219, 330; announcement of verdict of, 327–29; danger of not fulfilling promises to, 316; fascinated by Koehler’s testimony, 264; hearing Fisher’s outburst at reilly, 250–51; judge’s instructions to, 323–27, 326; options for verdicts, 322; reilly and, 308, 312; seeing hauptmann’s angry outbursts, 251–52, 279–80; selection of, 207–8 Kassens, Gus, 201 Keaten, lieutenant, 96, 105, 201; following additional footprints, 15–16; hauptmann and, 148, 152–55; investigating ransom money, 142, 146, 148; questioning Gow, 21–22; on rosner as intermediary with kidnapper, 24–25; Violet sharp and, 109–12, 115 Keith, stanley r., 255 Kelly, Frank, 96; examining ladder and mud, 16; fingerprints and, 11–14, 59; on lack of useful fingerprints, 13–14, 216; ransom note and, 12, 198–99, 298; testimony at extradition hearing, 198–99; trial testimony by, 224–25, 261–62 Kempairien, emily, 115 Kennedy, ludovic, 164, 197; accusations of bias by, 315, 326 Keraga, Kelvin, 187, 332 kidnapper(s). See also Cemetery John; hauptmann, richard Bruno; ransom delivery instructions; ransom notes: accomplices speculated about, 22–23, 47–48, 65, 68–69, 82–83, 310–11, 337–38; appearance of, 49, 54, 57; assumed to be getting nervous, 31, 66, 145; assumptions about, 12, 16, 18, 129, 130; assumptions about neighborhood of, 131–32, 143–44; assumptions made from ladder, 18, 107, 131–32, 133; assumptions of direction of flight by, 16, 22; baby’s sleeping unit sent by, 60; Breckinridge and, 31, 32–33, 57, 69; careful construction of ladder by, 14–15, 18; choosing Condon as intermediary, 37–38, 39, 41, 214; communication with, 31, 42–43, 47, 57, 66–70; Condon and, 55–57, 106; Condon as intermediary with, 90–91; Condon on possible woman accomplice, 47–48, 65, 68–69; Condon’s letter to, 36–37; Curtis claiming to be intermediary

with, 43–44, 69–70, 92–94, 103–6; direction of flight of, 16, 22–23, 75; fear of double-cross by, 88–89; following case in newspapers, 27, 45; intermediaries with, 23–25, 27, 31–33, 43–45, 129; lack of contact about baby from, 69, 89–90; lindbergh following instructions from, 74, 83–84, 103; lindbergh interfering with capture of, 24; lindberghs’ appeal to, 23; possibility of inside job, 20–22; prosecution asserting Curtis’s involvement with, 124–25; reilly’s conspiracy theory on, 310–13, 319, 325; shoenfeld’s tips on arrest of, 147 kidnapping, 334; lindbergh’s second son threatened with, 126–28; by loeb and leopold, 335– 36; made federal crime, 17; as misdemeanor, not felony, in new Jersey, 190, 326 kidnapping, of lindbergh baby, 10, 152; Burns reporting confession of, 323; discovery of, 5–6, 212; dispute about occurrence of, 22–23; father testifying about, 212–13; as foolish target, 129, 132; hauptmann denying, 160, 282; hauptmann not initially questioned about, 149; jurisdiction over, 106, 129, 178; lindbergh calling police about, 7–8, 218; motives for, 132, 210, 311–12, 334–35; reilly’s version of, 309–11; rumors of organized crime involvement in, 24–25, 32–33; said to have been planned for a year, 57, 66; Wilentz’s version of, 208–10 kidnapping investigation, 107, 321; defense criticizing, 268; irs involvement in, 240–41; press coverage of, 144–45 Kiss, louis, 287, 306 Kissane, James J., 164–65 Kloppenburg, hans, 270, 282, 293–94, 294–95 Knapp, howard James, 196–98, 257 Koehler, arthur, 134, 206, 223, 227; criticism of method and conclusions of, 185–87; defense witness and, 301–2; examinations of ladder by, 133–36; matching ladder’s rail to hauptmann’s attic boards, 180, 184–85, 262–63; postrial life, 343; searching for lumber mill with specific planer, 135–37, 139, 154, 179–80; trial testimony of, 261–66, 306 Kohl, selma, 305–6 Konietzko, William, 306 Kubler, louis, 298 ladder, used in kidnapping, 20, 218; breaking of, 5, 14, 255, 334; careful construction of, 14–15, 18, 131–32; defense on, 59, 299–303; discovery of, 8–9, 223; drawing found in hauptmann’s home, 157, 278; drawn on reilly’s stationery, 206; fingerprints and, 14, 16, 59–60, 299–300; footprints around, 10, 15; hauptmann denying building, 157, 195, 272, 326; hochmuth claiming to have seen hauptmann with, 226, 259; Koehler’s examination and tests of, 133–36,

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Index 185–87; left unsecured by police, 10, 310–11; marks made in mud by, 18, 222, 224; nail holes in rail sixteen of, 135, 299, 304–5; offered into evidence, 223, 227, 259; photographs of, 187–88; police accused of faking rail matching hauptmann’s attic boards, 187–88, 189; police experiments with, 107, 227–28; police handling of, 133, 188, 223; police replica of, 18, 19; rail matching hauptmann’s attic boards, 179–81, 184–87, 185–86, 262, 266, 302–3, 306; search for specific planer for wood of rail sixteen, 135–37, 154, 261, 264; state police seeing as key, 133; as strongest piece of evidence, 259, 265–66, 332; witnesses claiming to have seen someone besides hauptmann with, 288–89, 293, 303, 306 lamb, John, 12, 178, 227; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–55; questioning Curtis, 103–4 lanigan, assistant district attorney, 241–42, 289–90 larsen, arthur, 304 legal ethics: fairness of hauptmann’s trial, 332–33; Wilentz using questionable, 198, 234–35 lehman, herbert, 192 lenz, George e. J., 200, 300 leon, samuel J., 14–16, 188 leopold, nathan, 335–36 leslie, special agent, 152–55 levatino, salvatore, 155 levenson, Joseph, 305 Liberty Magazine, interview with Condon in, 170 license number, hauptmann’s, 249, 265; lyle recording, 146, 249; murphy recording, 137–38 lindbergh, anne morrow, 1, 7, 11; baby’s death and, 97, 250; discovery of kidnapping and, 5–6, 8; illness of, 3–4, 46; kidnapper and, 23, 42; other children of, 126, 344–45; at trial, 211–12, 306 lindbergh, Charles augustus: accusations against, 5, 262; appeal to kidnappers, 23; Condon and, 35, 57–58, 344; and Condon as intermediary to kidnapper, 33, 38–40, 41, 42, 65, 72, 230, 232; Curtis and, 92–94, 105–6, 125; death of baby and, 94, 102; discovery of kidnapping, 5–6; fame of, 1–2; focused on recovering baby, 23–24; following kidnapper’s instructions, 74, 82–84; grand jury testimony by, 179, 191; hearing “cracking sound,” 5; identification of baby’s body by, 101, 245, 250; identifying baby’s sleeping unit, 60; identifying hauptmann’s voice, 179, 181, 191, 215, 217, 312, 332; and intermediaries with kidnapper, 23–25, 27, 31–33, 44, 70; micromanaging investigation, 24, 39, 103; on note sent with baby’s sleeping unit, 61–63; offering reward, 36; other children of, 126, 344–45; police and, 7–8, 10, 103; postrial life, 344–45; press and, 17, 65, 89, 126; ransom and, 64, 76–79,

/355348t

| 397 |

81; reilly’s cross-examination of, 215–17; role in investigation, 15–16; searching for baby, 87–88, 215; seeing man pass by at ransom delivery, 79, 82–83; shoenfeld and, 131–32; sourland estate and, 4–5, 8–9, 11; as target for kidnapping, 129, 132; trial testimony of, 207, 212–17; Violet sharp and, 109, 112 lindbergh, Charles augustus, Jr., 2, 42, 59; assurances of well-being of, 26–28, 56–57, 61; autopsy of, 99–101, 245–47; body of, 101–2, 209, 215, 247; burial of, 209, 333–34; cause of death of, 97, 100–101, 246–47; Cemetery John concerned about effects of death of, 55, 57, 130; Condon wanting proof of well-being of, 67, 74, 103; cremation of body of, 102, 245; damage to skull of, 97, 100; death of, 75, 107, 129–30, 190, 208, 320; diet of, 23, 27–28, 61; discovery of body of, 94–95, 96, 98, 218, 245; discovery of kidnapping of, 5–6; father asking for photo of, 44; father looking for, 87–88, 215; focus on retrieving, vs. capturing kidnapper, 81, 239–40; Gow dressing and putting to bed, 211–12, 219; hauptmann and, 191, 271; identification of body of, 96–98, 101, 219, 245, 247, 249–51; illness of, 3–4, 23; intentionality of death of, 190–91, 320, 333–34, 337–38; “John” claiming well-being of, 56–57; jurisdiction of murder of, 246; kidnapper and, 54, 130; kidnapper underestimating weight of, 14–15; as kidnapping target, 129, 132; not crying out during kidnapping, 21, 309, 320, 333; note with directions to find, 82–85, 84; possible caretaker for, 337–38; requirement to pay ransom without seeing, 61, 64; rumors of deformities of, 2–3; said to be held on boat, 44–45, 56–57, 93–94; sleeping unit identified, 211–12, 214, 219; sleeping unit of, 60, 75, 81, 209; thumb guards of, 74–75, 212, 219, 221–22, 243, 260; Violet sharp asked about, 110, 112 lindbergh, Jon, kidnap threats to, 126–28 lindbergh, reeve, 344–45 The Lindbergh Case. See Fisher, Jim lindbergh law, making kidnapping federal crime, 17 loeb, richard, 335–36 lupica, sebastian Benjamin, 20, 293, 303 lyle, Walter, 146, 178, 249, 255 lyons, inspector John, 142, 262; disbelief of hauptmann’s story about gold notes, 160–61; hauptmann claiming to have told about money, 195, 199; on identifications of hauptmann, 157, 167, 169; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–55, 157–58 lyons, John Joseph (not inspector), 146, 178, 248–49 maeder, Jay, 181 main, Theron, 298

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 398 |

--

/355348t

index

maish, morton C., 243 majestic hotel, hauptmann’s job at, 194–95, 200; existence of records of, 196–98; timing of, 201, 257, 270 manley, Walter, 301 manslaughter, as appropriate charge, 190, 333 marcus, david, 140 markenke, august, 288 marshall, erwin, 101 marshall, George, 307 matteson, leigh, 129–30 mcKelvey, and Violet sharp, 111–12, 120 mcKinery, richard, 175 mershon, Francis, 164–65 mielk, ewald, 303 miller, ernest, 117–19, 306–7 miller, Gustave, 298 misinformation: about additional footprints and tire tracks, 15; about Condon and hauptmann in lineup, 163; about construction of ladder, 15; about lack of fingerprints in nursery, 216, 262; from FBi reports, 147–48 mistrial, reilly moving for, 210, 234–35 mitchell, Charles: baby’s autopsy and, 99–100, 245–47; on cause of baby’s death, 190; trial testimony of, 245–48 moore, Gov. a. harry, 17, 192 morrow, dwight, 1 morrow, dwight, Jr., 115 morrow, elizabeth (grandmother), 126; told of baby’s death, 97–98; Violet sharp working for, 45, 120–21; vouching for Violet sharp, 109, 307 morrow estate, servants at, 45, 91–92, 318–19 morton, edward, 257 moses, philip, 296 muller, maria, 296 mulrooney, edward p., 85 murder: hauptmann convicted of first-degree, 329, 333; hauptmann indicted for, 191; intentionality of baby’s death unable to be proved, 190–91, 333; in judge’s instructions to jury, 326; Wilentz accusing hauptmann of intention in, 320, 333; Wilentz and, 210, 246 murphy, alice, 137–38 murphy, edward, 159, 254 national lumber yard: hauptmann’s job at, 195, 261; wood for ladder from, 261, 264–65 navy, lindbergh borrowing airplane from, 88 nazis: lindbergh accused of sympathizing with, 344; “table board confession” and, 339–40 Nelly, baby said to be onboard, 84, 88, 215, 234 new Jersey, 220. See also state police, new Jersey; extradition of hauptmann to, 192–200; hauptmann denying being in on day of kidnapping, 196, 200; kidnapping as misdemeanor in, 190; kidnapping in jurisdiction of,

178; rumors of look-alike witness for hauptmann in, 241–42; witness placing hauptmann in, 188–90, 225–26 new york: extortion in jurisdiction of, 178; extradition of hauptmann from, 192–200 New York American: communication with kidnapper through, 31, 42–43, 47, 61, 64, 73 new york City, ransom bills found in, 140–44 new york City municipal archives, 334 New York Journal, 73, 205 new york police department, 145, 255; investigating extortion charges, 129, 138–39; role in investigation, 85, 129–31, 147–48; trying to catch kidnapper through ransom bills, 140–42 newspapers, 88; communication with kidnapper through, 27, 31, 36–37; Condon and, 36–38, 65, 90–91; Condon’s identification of hauptmann and, 204–5, 232, 235–36; Curtis and, 44, 106; Curtis trying to sell stories to, 94, 105–6; dobson-peacock’s story in, 44–45; hauptmann’s trial and, 207–8, 213, 327; “Jafsie” identity and, 64, 69, 90; kidnapper and coverage in, 17, 30–31, 38, 45; on kidnapping investigation, 122, 144–45, 163; on lindbergh baby, 2–3; lindberghs trying to avoid, 1–2, 17, 126; printing photographs of baby’s body, 101–2; on ransom, 64, 89, 145; reporters swarming crime scene, 14–17; reporting wrong verdict, 327, 328; told of baby’s death, 98; Violet sharp and, 111–12, 116, 118–19 noise: baby not crying out during kidnapping, 21, 309, 320; “cracking” heard, 5, 21; cry in woods heard, 7; dog not barking, 216, 309; theory of murder to prevent baby crying out, 320, 333 norman, a. e., 119–20 nursery, 42; baby put to bed in, 4, 6; footprints in mud under window of, 8–9, 222–24; hauptmann denying being in, 271; lack of useful fingerprints in, 13, 216, 261–62, 300, 310; location of, 3, 20; mud in, 7, 14, 218; police examining, 10, 11, 218; ways out of house from, 216; Wilentz accusing hauptmann of murdering baby in, 320; windows and shutters in, 4, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 218, 228 o’Brien, James, 229 o’Brien, John, 49 oliver, richard, 85, 131, 142–43 olshaker, mark, on Violet sharp, 112, 119 orgen, Jacob “little augie,” 24–25 organized crime, 314; Condon incensed by lindbergh dealing with, 35–36; possible motive for lack of confession and, 338; reasons for disbelief of involvement of, 33, 129; rumors of involvement in kidnapping, 24–25, 32–33 orr, hugh, 301–2 o’ryan, John, 195, 305

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

Index osborn, albert d. (son), 142, 243; on hauptmann’s handwriting matching ransom notes, 158, 162, 178; postrial life, 344 osborn, albert s. (father), 118, 243, 316; postrial life, 343–44; testifying on hauptmann’s handwriting matching ransom notes, 162, 178, 191, 198–99, 241–42 oursler, Fulton, 170 paw prints, found near additional footprints, 15 pellmier, Karl, 153 perjury: heier charged with, 303; sommer’s, 291–92 perrone, Joseph, 49–50, 50, 143; description of Cemetery John from, 144; grand jury testimony by, 106, 178; identifying hauptmann, 157–58, 228 petrosino, James, 159, 199 phelan, James, 27, 198–99 photographs, 15, 44, 148; of baby’s body, 96; of footprints, 16, 223; judge forbidding at trial, 213, 291; of ladder, 14, 187–88, 304–5; not taken during autopsy, 100–101, 247–48 pill, rosie, 207, 209 planes, wood: identifiable marks left by, 133, 263– 65, 301; neighbor denying ownership of, 297; search for specific planer of wood of ladder’s rail sixteen, 135–37, 154, 261, 264 plebani, Cornel, 159 police, 27, 45. See also specific agencies and individuals; accusations against, 149, 156, 187–88, 189, 197–98, 322; adversarial relations among, 129, 147–48, 192; arrival of, 8–9; concern about rosner as intermediary with kidnapper, 24–25; Condon and, 38, 145, 201–5; examination of mail by, 18–19, 27; frustration of, 122; Giesslers questioned by, 142; grand jury testimony, 191; hauptmann claiming to have told about money, 195, 199, 305; hauptmann’s car seized by, 152; hauptmann’s claims of beatings by, 173–74, 273; hauptmann’s handwriting samples and, 158–59, 322; at hauptmann’s house, 147–48, 159–60, 179; identification of baby’s body, 250; on indications against inside job, 22; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–59, 280; kidnapper’s instructions about, 26, 38; lindbergh and, 17, 24, 74, 103; lindbergh servants scrutinized by, 91–92, 215, 318–19; lying to, 124, 280; problems with hauptmann’s lineup by, 163, 171; questioning hauptmann’s wife, 150; ransom transfer and, 74, 85; reilly criticizing, 223–25, 228, 310–11; replica of ladder by, 18, 19, 107; reports of suspicious cars and, 19–20; search for ransom money by, 152, 159–60; taking over investigation, 103; trying to catch kidnapper through ransom bills, 140–41, 143–44; trying to control swarm of reporters, 16–17

--

/355348t

| 399 |

pope, Frederick a., 206, 249, 299, 301; cross-examinations by, 227, 243, 265; fighting to keep ladder out of evidence, 223, 259; objections by, 254, 280 postcard, as wild-goose chase, 18–19 press. See newspapers privacy, lindbergh and, 1, 126 prosecutors. See also Wilentz, david: accused of suppressing evidence, 197–98; brief summary before presenting summation, 307; burden of proof of, 309, 317; contradicting defense’s blame on Fisch for kidnapping, 305–6; gathering rebuttal witnesses, 303; on hauptmann’s finances, 256; identifications of hauptmann and, 201–5, 300; jury selection and, 207–8; ladder as strongest evidence of, 184–85, 188, 259, 301; objecting to reilly’s stunt with tartell, 296; preparation for trial, 201; selection of evidence used in extradition hearing, 193 ransom amount, 40, 61; Condon negotiating about, 81, 86–87, 103, 130; increases in, 26–27, 29–30, 56, 71 ransom delivery: by Condon, 78–82, 232–33; Condon and, 230–31; failure of, 54; Fisch identified in, 297; hauptmann denying presence, 270; lack of attempt to capture kidnapper at, 239–40; lindbergh at, 215; police and, 74, 85; requirement to pay without seeing baby, 61, 64 ransom delivery instructions, 40, 42, 50–51, 70–71, 76–78, 80; assumption of kidnapper’s neighborhood from, 132; Condon and, 47, 123, 231; followed exactly, 48, 76; left by cab driver, 76, 78 ransom money: banks watching for serial numbers of, 140, 249; bills folded in unique way, 143–44, 148–49; chain of custody of, 248; change in hauptmanns’ finances by, 210, 256; collecting and recording of, 248; Condon’s house searched for, 124; Curtis on, 43–44, 105; disposal of, 55, 337–38 ransom money, uses of, 258; assumptions about kidnapper from bills from, 143–44; “Faulkner” depositing, 141–43, 241, 314, 337–38; Finn trying to catch kidnapper through, 132, 140–43; found in hauptmann’s garage, 159–60, 162, 180–81, 195, 199, 253–54, 255, 331; gold notes in, 74, 86–87, 141; hauptmann arrested with bills from, 148, 195, 251, 253, 259, 280; hauptmann denying knowledge of, 150, 155, 160; hauptmann identified passing gold notes, 146, 155, 257–58, 260, 272, 281, 295, 331; hauptmann’s explanation of, 194, 210, 325–26; hauptmann’s explanation of gold notes, 160–61, 195–96, 257, 271, 277–79; as hauptmann’s motives for kidnapping, 210, 334–35; hauptmann’s wife and, 175, 194; lindbergh raising, 74; money

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 400 |

--

/355348t

index

ransom money, uses of (cont.) reported to be ready, 47, 51, 58, 69–70; newspapers on, 64, 89; police searching for more of, 152, 179; serial numbers of, 74, 89–90, 240; timing of appearance of bills, 144–45, 241; Wilentz linking hauptmann to, 209–10, 248–49 ransom note, left in nursery, 6–8, 13, 29, 298; assumptions drawn from, 12; hauptmann denying leaving, 271; lack of fingerprints from, 11–12; police and, 9–10, 16; rosner’s request to see and copy, 25; similarity of later letters to, 26–27 ransom notes, 214. See also “singnature” and holes, in ransom notes; assumptions made from, 12, 132; Brinkert’s handwriting compared to, 117– 18; Condon’s testimony on, 232–33; in Curtis’s stories about kidnappers, 92–93; father testifying about, 212–14; grand jury testimony about, 106; hauptmann copying as writing sample, 156; hauptmann denying handwriting on, 200, 290; hauptmann’s handwriting matched to, 162, 191, 198–99, 241–44; hauptmann’s similar to loeb and leopold’s, 335–36; hauptmann’s spelling matched to, 275; note sent with baby’s sleeping unit, 61–63, 62–63; reilly trying to blame on Fisch, 301; schoenfeld’s analysis of, 130–31; second letter as, 25–27; sent through Condon, 40, 41, 49–53, 51–52, 232; sent to Breckinridge, 31; on “table board confession,” 339; taxi drivers delivering, 49–50, 51, 228–29, 239–40; testimony at extradition hearing, 198–200; third letter as, 27–31, 28–29 rauch, max, 261 rauch, pauline, 151 reich, alfred J., 38, 47, 76; on Condon’s meeting with supposed kidnapper, 51–55, 57, 230; driving lindbergh’s car, 87–88; grand jury testimony by, 106; hauptmann denying knowing, 156; waiting for kidnapper at Condon’s, 48, 230–31 reilly, edward J., 255. See also defense team, hauptmann’s; accusations and allegations by, 238, 257; alcohol consumption by, 311; calling witnesses to support hauptmann’s alibis, 282–83, 286–89, 293–94; cross-examination of lindbergh, 215–17; cross-examining Condon, 234–38; cross-examining lindberghs’ servants, 219–22; cross-examining medical examiners, 245–48; cross-examining police witnesses, 223–25, 228, 261–62; cross-examining prosecutor’s rebuttal witnesses, 305, 307; cross-examining sisk, 252–53, 259–60; errors by, 217, 316; expert witnesses and, 243, 295–96; gentle approach by, 212, 240; on hauptmanns’ finances, 256; hauptmann’s testimony and, 268–73, 281; jury and, 243, 248, 250–51, 329; making police look unprofessional, 223–25, 228; moving for

mistrial, 210; objecting to death certificate accepted as evidence, 245–46; objecting to questions about hidden gun, 275–76; other cross-examinations by, 239, 242; postrial life, 341–42; relations with team, 206, 307; resting case, 303, 307; stipulations by, 248–51; summation by, 307–13; taking over hauptmann’s defense, 205–6; trial strategies of, 231, 241–42, 290, 296–98; trying to discredit Condon, 238, 296–97; trying to discredit identifications, 226, 228, 229, 241–42, 261, 300 reilly, William, 138–39 richard, George, 94 riehl, robert, 54, 57 ritchie, Thomas J., 240 robbins, adam o., 125 roberts, Walter, 210–11 rosencrans, edgar, on hauptmann’s defense team, 206, 243, 267, 307 rosenhain, max, 38, 40, 42, 48, 230 rosner, morris “mickey,” 24–25, 43, 216 rossiter, Charles B., 260–61, 268 “sam” (claiming to represent kidnappers), 43–45 scaduto, anthony, 156, 162, 187–88, 197, 250–51, 326 scanlon, John, 241–42 Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. See scaduto, anthony schoeffel, major, 12 schussler, Victor, 297 schwartzberg, herman, 164–65 schwartzkopf, h. norman, 11, 202, 241; baby’s death and, 95, 97–98; on Curtis, dobsonpeacock, and Burrage, 44–45, 93, 106–7; on hauptmann’s fingerprints not on ladder, 295–96; on intermediaries with kidnapper, 24–25; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–55; postrial life, 342–43; reporters and, 89, 106, 118–19; role in investigation, 10, 22, 74, 91, 116, 142; schoenfeld and, 130–31; on scotland yard’s interpretation of signanture, 126; statement about serial numbers by, 89–90; Violet sharp and, 109, 114–16, 118–19; wanting control of investigation, 129–31, 133 seal, stanley, 301 seery, special agent, 249 sellers, Clark, 243 sentencing, 329, 333 seykora, John, 296–97 sharp, emily, 46, 119; leaving country, 92, 108; police questioning, 45–46, 118 sharp, Violet, 46, 117, 218; defense trying to implicate in kidnapping, 291–92, 295, 306–7, 317, 319; ernie miller and, 118–19; Gow’s relationship with, 220, 222; police questioning, 45–47, 91–92, 107–15, 318–19; suicide of, 115–16, 119–21, 312; in summation, 312–13

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

--

Index shoenfeld, dudley d., 129–30, 147, 169, 250; on hauptmann accusing sisk of lying, 251–52; profile of Cemetery John, 131–32 singer, leo, 306 “singnature” and holes, in ransom notes, 12; to distinguish genuine from hoax notes, 25–27, 61; holes matching table boards of the day, 339–41; holes of matching common table boards, 339–41; on kidnapper’s letters to Condon, 40–41, 66, 69–70, 72, 72; missing in some letters to Condon, 38, 53, 239; on ransom delivery instructions, 51, 78; repetition of, 26–27, 30–31; scotland yard’s interpretation as initials, 126; spelling not in writing samples, 273, 322 sisk, Thomas h., 88, 146–47, 181, 240, 253; on arrest of hauptmann, 251–52; hauptmann accusing of lying, 251–52; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–55; reilly cross-examining, 252, 259– 60; searching hauptmann’s garage, 150–51 sjostrom, lieutenant, 298 smith, elmer, 207, 209 snook, russell, 131, 295–96 snyder, Charles F., 207, 209 snyder, Verna, 207, 209 sommer, peter, 290–92, 295 souder, Wilmer t., 142, 243 sourland estate, lindberghs’, 3–4, 11; baby’s thumb guard found on, 74–75; Condon delivering kidnapper’s letter to, 38, 40–42; family’s schedule at, 20, 22, 46–47, 108, 110, 220; maps and drawings of introduced at trial, 210–11; neighbors of questioned, 188–90, 261, 293, 306; police questioning Curtis at, 103–6; public converging on, 16; reilly implicating servants in kidnapping, 309–10, 312–13, 318–19; reporters swarming, 14, 16, 60; searches of, 8–9, 15, 135; servants at, 22, 215 (see also specific individuals); witnesses contradicting identifications of hauptmann near, 288–89, 293–94; witnesses placing hauptmann near, 260 souvenirs: cremation to avoid selling of, 102; sold at baby’s grave site, 101; taken from courthouse, 219 sperry, Grant, 332 spitale, salvador, 24–25, 32–33, 216 springer, arthur, 114–15 st. raymond’s Cemetery, 147; Condon meeting kidnapper in, 214–15, 233; defense trying to blame Fisch for ransom transfer in, 297, 306; hauptmann denying being in, 270, 272, 276; John’s footprint in, 88–89; ransom delivery to, 77–83, 86, 233 state police, new Jersey, 17; baby’s death and, 95, 98; contamination of evidence and, 10, 16; criticisms of, 119, 310–11; declaring “table board confession” forgery, 339; hauptmann and, 147–48, 192; intermediary with kidnap-

/355348t

| 401 |

per and, 23–24; Johnson questioned by, 22; ladder and, 133, 305; lindbergh calling about kidnapping, 7–8; role in investigation, 91, 129, 131; servants questioned by, 22, 107–14, 318–19 stein, eldridge, 242–43 steinweg, George, 297 stockburger, hugo, 202–5, 343 stockton, ethel, 207, 209 streppone, sam, 298 suicide watch, hauptmann on, 182 summations, 307; disruption of Wilentz’s, 322–23; process for, 307, 315; reilly’s, 307–13; Wilentz’s, 313–23 supreme Court, new Jersey, 332 swayze, Walter h., 95, 97, 99, 245; baby’s autopsy by, 99–101, 245 sweeney, John, 18, 158; disbelief of hauptmann’s “Fisch story” about gold notes, 160–61; on experiments with ladder, 227–28 “table board confession,” inauthenticity of, 338–41 tartell, Joseph, 296 Thurston, dexter, 173–74 tire tracks, 15, 75 tobin, maurice, 178, 255 treasury department, investigating hauptmanns’ finances, 256 trenchard, Thomas W., 201, 207, 243, 290; accusations of bias of, 325–27; allowing death certificate as evidence, 245–46; allowing defense to claim effects of poverty, 268, 316; allowing prosecution witnesses on hauptmann’s finances, 256; at announcement of verdict, 328–29; denying motion for mistrial, 235, 267; erroneous rulings by, 260, 269, 276, 316; fairness of hauptmann’s trial under, 332; forbidding photographs of trial, 213, 291; instructions to jury by, 324–27; keeping order, 218, 221–22, 231, 250; on ladder as evidence, 223, 227, 259; on outbursts at trial, 252, 254–55, 323; postrial life, 342; ruling on defense handwriting expert, 289–90; trying to hasten trial, 306, 307; on Wilentz badgering hauptmann, 280 trendley, John, 289–90, 311 trial, hauptmann’s: fairness of, 332–33; father testifying at, 212–17; jury for, 207–8, 209; mother testifying at, 211–12; opening statements at, 208; preparation time for, 201 turrou, special agent, 162–63, 170, 181 tyrell, John F., 243 uhlig, henry, 301 Van Cordlandt park: Condon’s meeting with kidnapper in, 230, 233, 272; hauptmann’s proximity to, 147, 154 Van henke, august, 287–88

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.

Job Name:

| 402 |

--

/355348t

index

Van ingen, philip, 98–99 verdict: announcement of, 327–29; jury’s options for, 322, 324; press reporting wrong, 327, 328 Vetterle, paul, 295 Vitray, laura, 64–65 voice: Condon recording imitation of Cemetery John’s, 259–60, 318; lindbergh identifying Cemetery John’s as hauptmann’s, 191, 215, 217, 312, 332; lindbergh questioned about Cemetery John’s, 179, 181 Voorhees, George, 208, 209 Wallace, John: arrest of hauptmann by, 148, 253; interrogation of hauptmann by, 152–55; search of hauptmann’s garage by, 159, 255 Walsh, harry: baby’s body and, 96–97, 245; damage to baby’s skull by, 97, 100, 245, 247; interrogating Condon, 122–24, 169; interrogating Violet sharp, 91–92, 109–15; questioning Curtis, 104–5; sharp’s suicide and, 115, 119; on Violet sharp and ernies, 117–19 Walter, herbert J., 243 Walters, John, 330 Walton, Charles, 207, 209, 329 Wendel, paul, 331 Whateley, elsie, 4, 20, 21; describing day of kidnapping, 7, 218–19; finding baby’s thumb guard, 74–75, 260; police and, 11, 215; postrial life, 344; reilly implicating in kidnapping, 312–13, 319 Whateley, olly, 20, 21, 218; death of, 135, 344; police and, 7, 215; reilly implicating in kidnapping, 309–10, 312–13, 319; searching grounds with lindbergh, 8–9 Where My Shadow Falls. See turrou, special agent Whited, millard, 188–90, 268; hauptmann denying having seen, 200; identification of hauptmann by, 191, 199–200, 260–61; lack of credibility of, 200, 300; testimony at extradition hearing, 199–200 Whitehead, William diltz, 200, 300 Wilentz, david, 202, 205, 219, 295; accused of racism, 315; anna hauptmann and, 193–94, 254, 283–85, 337; badgering hauptmann, 275–76, 278–80; calling witnesses about collecting and recording ransom money, 248; challenging defense’s expert witnesses, 299–302; challenging hauptmann’s alibi, 193–94, 197; claiming hauptmann purposely killed baby in nursery,

320, 333; Condon’s testimony and, 230–31; cross-examination of hauptmann, 273–77, 280; on defense’s claim of effects of poverty, 268; discrediting alibi witnesses, 286–89, 291–92, 297, 301; disruption of summation by, 322–23; evidence used in at extradition hearing, 192–93, 198; forgetting to ask for sentencing, 329; getting hauptmann’s handwriting samples entered into evidence, 240; handwriting experts of, 241, 243–44; hauptmann’s as first criminal trial for, 223; hauptmanns’ finances and, 248–49, 257; identification of baby and, 246, 249; identifications of hauptmann from Condon and, 204–5, 232–34; improper tactics by, 198, 234–35, 314–17; on jury’s boredom, 242–43; Koehler’s trial testimony and, 262–66; length of cross-examination of hauptmann, 276, 279, 281–82; objections by, 221, 273; opening statement at hauptmann’s trial, 208–10; police witnesses and, 223, 225, 227–28, 260, 298; postrial life, 342; prompting anger from hauptmann, 279–80; questioning father at trial, 212–15; questioning mother at trial, 211–15; rebuttal case by, 267, 303, 307; on reilly trying to discredit Condon, 238, 297; resting state’s case, 266; summation by, 273, 313–23; trial strategies of, 225, 254, 257, 265, 274, 279– 80, 283, 303; trying to get ladder into evidence, 227, 259; using felony murder rule, 190–91 Wilentz, norma, 342 Wilentz, robert, 342 Wilentz, Warren, 342 Williamson, Charles, 218; arrival of, 8–9; discovery of baby’s body and, 95; evidence left unsecured by, 10; leaving for reading of ransom note, 12; receiving first call about kidnapping, 7 Wilson, Frank J., 131, 142, 240 Wilson, orville, 95, 98, 245 Wilton, George C., 305 Wolf, Joseph a., 10, 222 Wolfe, harry, 8–10, 12, 95 Wollenburg, otto and louis, 296 Woodlawn Cemetery, 53, 147; Condon meeting kidnapper in, 53–54, 86, 230, 233; hauptmann denying being in, 272, 276 Wunstorf, august, 288 Zapolsky, andrew, 95–96, 245

In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option.