The Dark Corners Of The Lindbergh Kidnapping: Volume Iii 1o5e35

The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping

Volume III

Michael Melsky

THEDARK CORNERSOF THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING VOLUME III

Copyright © 2019 Michael Melsky.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse 1663 Liberty Drive Bloomington, IN 47403 www.iuniverse.com 1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only. Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

ISBN: 978-1-5320-8756-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-8755-4 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 11/25/2019

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Additions & Errata

2. The “Perfect” Child

3. Schippell’s Shack

4. J. J. Faulkner

5. The Wood Evidence

6. Justice is Served

Acknowledgments

As always, I must start by mentioning all those who have assisted me in writing these books, with particular attention to those who have helped me most with this volume. To thank everyone would require an acknowledgement section longer than the book itself, so I apologize in advance for anyone I may have missed.

First, without Mark Falzini, archivist at the New Jersey State Police Archives, my books could never have been written. The opportunity to meet Mark is an added incentive for anyone contemplating a visit to the Archives. His two books, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (iUniverse, 2010) and New Jersey’s Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial (Arcadia, 2012), coauthored with James Davidson, are required reading for anyone interested in the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Another friend, Dr. Lloyd Gardner, is someone else I cannot thank enough. He has both inspired and assisted me over the years in immeasurable ways and is one of my many “go-to” people when I need to discuss ideas or get a different perspective. Both he and his wife Nancy are, quite simply, some of the finest people I know. Lloyd’s book, The Case That Never Dies (Rutgers, 2004), provides all the vital information and background on the Lindbergh kidnapping and is another book that should be read before picking up any of mine.

I rely entirely on Siglinde Rach’s steel-trap memory and her ability to see connections no one else ever would. As with my previous volumes, she has freely shared her research with me, and this volume is no exception. I also rely on Dolores Raisch for her rational, grounded, and common-sense approach. Without either Siglinde or Dolores, these books simply would not exist.

Margaret Sudhakar has had a major impact on my study of the case since my first volume. She has been extremely helpful through our communications, and by developing material unique to our discussions. Kurt Tolksdorf has provided invaluable assistance through the years and, without his input, I would have never been able to write Chapter 2 of this volume. Kevin Klein and Rab Purdy have been priceless to me over the years with their thoughts, ideas, insights, and skills, and continue to be. Without either of them, Chapter 5 could never have been written.¹ David Holwerda, is another I can always count on to unselfishly share his vast wealth of knowledge and unique experiences concerning this case. Also, my thanks to all the New Jersey State Police Troopers who worked the desk at the Museum and Recruiting Unit over the course of my research, from 2000 to 2019. Their courtesy and professionalism demonstrate why the New Jersey State Police is one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the country.

Thanks to Andy Sahol, who has unselfishly shared many of Ellis H. Parker’s unique materials with me, as well as family recollections. I have worked with him over the years in his attempts to get his grandfather Ellis the posthumous pardon he deserves. Andy has done everything in his power to see this happen and has vowed to never stop until it does.

Special thanks to Proboards contributor Nathan Weinberger, for his assistance in editing the final version of this volume, as well as the following for their invaluable help. Remove one of these people below and, without their interaction, I might never have been able to get to the point where I felt ready to write this third volume:

Michael Keaten, Lydia Keaten Bowen, Susan Candy-Luterman, Irvin Moran, Michael Beggs, Sam Bornstein, Ronelle Delmont, Joe Czulinski, Steve Romeo, Wayne McDaniel, Frederick “Rick” Green III, Richard Sloan, John Reisinger, Dr. Robert Knapp, Justin Berns, Rob O’Keefe, David Sims, Dick Anderson, John Sasser, Dr. Robert B. Simon, Mary Broadway, Pamela Bingham, Prof. Dr. Fritz Schweingruber, Kelvin Keraga, Harry Jeppe, and Liz Pagel.

Last but not least, my thanks to all the contributors to my Proboards venue, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board (lindberghkidnap.proboards.com), especially “Amy35.” Amy has not only assisted with her ideas both on and off the board, but has kindly provided me with source documentation that I had never before seen. Without her and other of the board, I would never have been challenged or had my ideas properly tested.

Introduction

This book will follow the same path as both V1 & V2, by exploring the dark corners of the Lindbergh kidnapping. The topics that will be discussed in this volume are ones that have never before been properly examined, and new facts will be brought to light, which will, I believe, cause many to rethink their positions on these subjects. Readers should be prepared, though, for the unorthodox approach I take in not providing transitions between chapters, and they may also find that I repeat certain facts or bring up different interpretations of those facts that may not always accord with one another. I do this intentionally, so the reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to have access to number of sources that are little-known and privately held. They have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the case, and I have tried to communicate my essential findings from each in my books. In this regard, my books are unique and should offer new information to even the most seasoned researchers.

As with the two previous volumes of The Dark Corners, there is no index. I know many like to “index surf,” to quickly find information about specific topics —something I’ve done myself. However, these books aren’t meant to be read that way, as jumping around would cause readers to miss valuable information that ties certain points together, completely undermining the value of the topic one is seeking to learn about. This is especially true in those instances where I may not explicitly point out certain connections, which I allow the reader to discover for themselves. Additionally, there are many complex subjects in this volume and it may be helpful for readers to take notes as they make their way through the material.

I have received a great deal of concerning my two previous volumes,

much of it extremely positive, while others apparently do not “like” the information I have assembled. Unfortunately, I did not invent the sources nor write the reports at the NJSP Archives and elsewhere, and, having only spent a fraction of the necessary time at the Archives, self-styled “experts” on the case have not seen 95% of what is included in my citations.² As such, these types of emotional (as opposed to logical) objections can never be fully put down. I have found that facts, no matter how undeniable, almost always take a backseat to beliefs, and while I do understand that certain beliefs are hard to part with, if one is honest, it is difficult not to rethink and replace certain information from previous authors on the case after referring to my footnotes.

In the end, I hope what I’ve written will inspire future researchers to learn the truth behind the so-called “Crime of the Century,” perhaps uncovering something I’ve missed or may see something different from their perspective.

To this end, I’ve included a section on rail 16 of the kidnap ladder—the greatest of the many mysteries of this case, which I believe I have, with the help of many others, finally solved.

1 Additions & Errata

As in V1 and V2 of The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping, I begin with a chapter not unlike New Jersey Governor Harold G. Hoffman’s Liberty Magazine article, “More Things I Forgot to Tell,”³ where I correct any mistakes or misunderstandings while adding to, complementing, and supplementing information in previous volumes with new material.

Footnotes

*The cited documents are usually recorded as they exist in the sources, but I’ve noticed they often contain misspellings or typographical errors. Other documents use the language of the day, for example, “clew” for “clue,” “machine” for “car,” or words like “forenoon” which are no longer in use. Whenever possible, I will cite the document as written.

*The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) changed its name several times during its investigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping. They were known as the Bureau of Investigation until June 30, 1932, the United States Bureau of Investigation from July 1, 1932 through June 30, 1933, the Division of Investigation from July 1, 1933 through 1935, and finally the Federal Bureau of Investigation from March 22, 1935 to present. To save money, after each name change, the FBI continued to use their pre-printed blank reports, memos, and letterhead which contained their previous designation until those supplies were exhausted. This creates significant problems for anyone trying to accurately document their research, and I do my best to exemplify this situation within the footnotes. Throughout this volume I will use “FBI” in most places to remain

consistent and avoid confusion.

Volume I

Chapter 9 – The Whateleys

*Part of the necessity for multiple volumes on the Lindbergh kidnapping concerns the massive number of sources there are to consult. Nearly every day I recall information that I’ve read within my collection of documents, but cannot recall where I filed that document, or even which document the information was in. Even if I know it exists, I cannot include information if I cannot properly cite it, but since I never stop reviewing my material, it can happen, mostly at random, that I later stumble on the source. Other times someone familiar with the subject will save me the frustration of the search by telling me where it is, as with the following information:

Prior to the temporary telephone lines being laid to Highfields, which funneled case-related calls directly to the residence, all New Jersey State Police (NJSP) locations were flooded with various tips, information, suspicions, and accusations. One such call was taken by a trooper at the NJSP Training School on March 4, 1932, resulting in the following log entry:

Picked up the antecedents of the Wheatly [sic] Couple – When we first came to country as Ollie Wately [sic] – correct name Alalyousis [sic] About 2 weeks after he arrived in country about April – 1930 – he & his wife took a job – utility service with a family Mendham N. J. by name of Potter – worked thru 5 months than went they were discharged because of Stupidity in Duty – they then went to live at a boarding house 71 Franklin Ave – New Rochelle N.Y. had been living at that place prior to taking job with Porter – At New Rochelle they got a job in a

womans Corset shop – before he came to this country from England he had conducted a Jewelry shop in Burmingham [sic] England and business failed – A family they went with in this country name of Teresa Morgan – 758 East 138 St – N.Y.C.

-He is a very stupid sort & any one could get a lot of information from him easy -⁴

In researching this case, it’s been my experience that such information would sooner or later have been investigated. Unfortunately, I have never found a follow-up or further inquiry concerning Teresa Morgan within the NJSP report collections. However, she was mentioned again in a letter from private investigator Fred Munroe. Munroe was deputy chief of the State Secret Service of New Jersey, at their Bergen County headquarters in Hackensack.⁵ Munroe submitted three separate reports, one of which included the following:

A friend of Betty Gow, supposedly by the name of Treasa [sic] Morgan, of Scotland, about the same age as Betty Gow, of rather full face, marred by pimples, medium height was employed at the Potters estate in Mendham, N. J., near Morristown. Treasa [sic] Morgan was employed at this estate the same time Mr. & Mrs. Watley [sic] were employed there. The Watleys [sic] are now employed in the Lindbergh home in Hopewell. Watley [sic] was fired by Potter and after that went to work for Lindbergh.

This Treasa [sic] Morgan, the day after the kidnapping, entered the office of the Hackensack Employment Agency and asked for a position in New York. She was wild-eyed and kept pulling her handkerchief very nervously. She was told that they only gave positions in New Jersey. Still acting very nervous, she left. The following day she returned and told them not to bother about getting her a position because she had made connections. She said she couldn’t take a job because the doctor said she had to take a complete rest for thirty days. She stated that she had got a job in a roadhouse or inn near Hopewell. This inn or

roadhouse is in the Sourland Mountains, not so very far from the Lindbergh estate. Of course, how close cannot be determined until investigation is made. This place is known to a certain party I know and is of ill repute.

Munroe followed up the submission of these reports with a letter written to Col. Schwarzkopf, in which he stressed:

The most important one was regarding Betty Gow and the Whatley’s [sic] and Treasa [sic] Morgan, whom [my] report identifies. I have not heard anything from you regarding these reports but nevertheless, I know that you realize that I have tried to cooperate in this very sad affair and I know that I will hear from you at your first opportunity.⁷

Once again, I never located any follow-up to this communication.⁸

Volume II

Chapter 2 – The Woodlawn Experience

*Any grand jury testimony in either the Bronx or Flemington concerning Hauptmann obviously occurred in 1934. In several places within the footnotes, I misstated Coleman’s grand jury testimony as taking place in 1932.

Chapter 3 – Suspicious Events and Strange Encounters

Section – How Many Notes?

*In this section, I wanted to share some brilliant research by my very good friend Siglinde Rach. She had the great idea to go to the NJSP Museum and examine all the ransom notes to look for fold patterns and what, if anything, those patterns might reveal. She was able to discover that all notes with creases indicating a specific fold had each been inside an envelope – except one.

I reread your chapter on the enclosures with the sleeping suit. It is wonderfully detailed! Despite the overall confusion surrounding the issue, it seems there were indeed two notes, just like Jafsie had stated at the trial. It is my belief that the “Our man fail to collect…” note that allegedly came with the suit was written and perhaps even mailed to Jafsie right after the Woodlawn meeting. Its folding creases clearly indicate that it had been inside an envelope, and its wording in some instances is in the future tense, as in: “Now we will send you the sleeping suit from the baby besides it means 3 $ extra expenses becauce (sic) we have to pay another one.” If the note came with the suit, why didn’t it say: “Here is the sleeping suit…” and “… we had to pay…”? The note seems to have been held back for a couple days, either by the mailer of the package or by Jafsie. If it was mailed separately, i.e. ahead of the suit, the envelope could not be placed inside the package because there would have been stamps on it. And we’d have to ask why Jafsie, obviously with Breck’s permission as he was present when the package was delivered, would have placed the note inside the package. The most plausible explanation would be to authenticate the sleeping suit as the real thing, not just a replica. And if there were indeed two notes in the package – Jafsie even quoted from the second one – each would have been in its own envelope addressed to the respective recipient: one to Condon, one to CAL. Either way, the content(s) of the package other than the sleeping suit seem(s) to have been intentionally withheld or tampered with.

In JTA (page 137) Jafsie does another strange thing. He recounts the content of the note sent to him in the mail on April 1, yet what he recounts is not what that note actually said. And contrary to his claim in JTA, that note did not have an

enclosure. He cobbles together text from two other ransom notes: the note sent to Breck on March 7 and the note brought to Jafsie’s home on April 2 by the invisible cabbie. By the time Jafsie wrote JTA, the contents of the ransom notes had all been published in the press. Jafsie could have kept newspaper clippings and copied those text fragments from them. But why didn’t he quote from the correct note? And why quote from a note written and sent to Breck before he even got into the case? With anything involving Jafsie there are always more questions than answers.¹

Chapter 4 – The Ransom Drop Ruse Section – Cemetery John’s Strange Thumb(s)

*In this section I believe I make a strong case that the supposed “lump” attributed to Cemetery John’s thumb was an invention by Condon – a strange and imaginary attribute meant to rule out and safeguard any of those involved in the case if they were ever apprehended.¹¹ After reading V1, it was Siglinde Rach who again pointed out something Condon wrote in his own book, Jafsie Tells All!: Condon had the same lump. This was the supposed exchange between Condon and Lindbergh:

“Look at my hand,” I told him. “Here, on the back, between and below the base of thumb and forefinger. See that round lump of muscle that protrudes there?” “Yes. What caused that?” “It’s a school-teacher’s trade-mark. Fifty years of pushing chalk.”¹²

Did Condon have such a lump? Who knows? But if he did, I believe it complements and s my position.

Section – Bernard Uebel

*Since it was so vitally important to the case, here I tried to provide all the information I could find concerning what Bernard Uebel, a cemetery guard at St. Raymond’s Cemetery, told authorities. This included three incidents, the first being everything included in Detective Avon’s report, where I believe Uebel was most accurate. I think the only issue is that he mistook the actual dates concerning what he saw. What we see, and he was consistent throughout, is that everything concerning the dates revolved around his payday. Unfortunately, by revealing everything I had on this subject, I seemed to have created more confusion. I do know that most authors would have simply left out the other sources, but my goal is to always reveal everything so the reader has all information from which to draw their own conclusions.¹³

I want to share my personal beliefs on Uebel’s . It’s not something I like to do, however, since I’ve received so many questions about this subject, coupled with my doubts that anyone will ever invest the proper amount of time to research this matter themselves, I’ve decided to share my conclusions here:

First, the April 2 ransom drop at St. Raymond’s Cemetery, in which Lindbergh and Condon participated, was an obvious bait-and-switch tactic, designed to ensure the money was delivered and the extortionists had a clean getaway. Given the actions of the lookout at St. Raymond’s, it was clear that those present to collect the money were worried about being observed, followed, and arrested. What we know is that once Condon had the money, he walked down East Tremont Avenue, out of Lindbergh’s sight. Once there, I believe Condon met one of the extortionists, and the money in the box was emptied and handed over at that location. That individual left the area with the cash as Condon walked back toward Bergen’s florist shop within Lindbergh’s view, making sure Lindbergh would see him with the ransom box, clearly visible under his arm. Condon then turned left down Whittemore Avenue, which was supposed to have been his original destination. But instead of meeting Cemetery John at the hedge, as Condon later claimed, he walked down the dark street and hid the box in a

boxwood bush on the other side of the road and further down Whittemore from the hedge where Condon said he exchanged the ransom money for the “Boad Nelly” note. On returning to Lindbergh, parked in front of Bergen’s, Condon claimed the exchange took place at the hedge on Whittemore, which he would later show police. This gave way to the various stories Condon told about this event, which would be cemented into history as fact.

Uebel later recounted to Detective Avon that, on April 1, the day before the ransom drop, he saw men at St. Raymond’s who seemed to be “looking for someone.” But I believe what Uebel saw actually occurred on April 3, the day after the ransom drop, and that these men were not looking for someone but rather something. Specifically, they were there to retrieve the ransom box, while Condon was with Lindbergh and others searching for the “Boad Nelly” over Martha’s Vineyard by air. Most likely, these individuals couldn’t find the box and left empty-handed. That would push Uebel’s next to April 4. We know what he described on this date did occur because his lines up almost perfectly with Condon’s “walk-through” mentioned in both Vigil and Henry Breckinridge’s grand jury testimony. I believe this can be used as the control for all dates of the events Uebel witnessed. It also proves Uebel was not inventing information. He said the actual date of the box retrieval occurred on April 11, but considering he was off by two days concerning the other two previous events he saw, I think it is reasonable to consider he may have been off on this date as well. But when Uebel’s observations occurred makes little difference. It is more important to consider what he saw, and Uebel’s observations tell us the ransom box was concealed at St. Raymond’s, and individuals went there to later retrieve it. Next, we must consider what Condon said about the box, for what purpose, and that its unique properties and characteristics was a complete fabrication. Additionally, the fact that Uebel had no way of knowing the money and the box became separated – in addition to Condon arbitrarily suggesting it had been – is something I think is key. People who don’t “like” this will shrug it off, of that I am certain, but I do not think any reasonable person will.

One point of speculation that I did make in V2 was the possibility that the man described by Uebel as having a prominent jawline could have been Al Reich, a

friend and business associate of Condon’s. If Uebel’s first occurred during the search for the Nelly, Uebel could indeed have seen Reich, despite other events that day. According to Reich:

…at two o’clock in the morning a fellow name Irey, Breckinridge, Condon, and myself left there two o’clock, Colonel Lindbergh driving for Stratford, four miles outside of Bridgeport, that’s where Lindbergh was to go to get the hydroplane to look for his child. We had to wait there a half an hour, — to wait until it came. it was kind of getting daybreak up there and we had to wait until the hydroplane come down. It was a four seated plane. Colonel Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Condon and Irey got into the plane and started up to Martha’s Vineyard in search of the baby and I brought Colonel Lindbergh’s Franklin to Dr. Condon’s house. About eight o’clock at night they come down in Hicksville Aviation Country Club. They called the house and I took the Franklin to Hicksville and Colonel Lindbergh drove us up to New York City and Doctor Condon and I got out at 59th Street and Third Avenue and took the L together to Condon’s and Lindbergh continued out to Hopewell.¹⁴

This timetable left Reich ample time to return to the Bronx and be available as one of the three or four men Uebel saw “looking for someone” at St. Raymond’s. Of course, none of this proves he was either the man referenced by Uebel or among those who were, but since the opportunity did exist there’s room to consider it. Uebel examined mugshots and picked out a few who most resembled the men he had seen, but there is no mention of what or who these men looked like. Furthermore, there isn’t anything more to consult in order to find out. Was Uebel ever asked about Reich or anyone else connected to this case? Strange as it seems, despite identifying Condon, there is nothing to suggest he ever was.

After examining exactly what took place here, the use of a look-out, and also considering Condon’s involvement in the process, it is important to ask oneself if the level of planning, to include the St. Raymond’s bait-and-switch, lines up with the belief that an illegal alien carpenter like Bruno Richard Hauptmann singlehandedly adlibbed his way through this entire crime.

Section – Ransom Box

*Another source for Condon’s lies about the ransom box which I left out of V2 is in his Liberty Magazine article, where he wrote “we’ll use different types of wood in its construction. Maple, pine, tulipwood will be good – spruce might warp – and a couple of other varieties of wood.” Breckinridge replied, “that box later could be positively identified.” And Condon further emphasized this by saying: “I’ll have that box made so it could be identified one hundred years from now.”¹⁵

*Knowing what we do about the bait-and-switch situation surrounding the ransom box, something else Condon wrote about in Liberty is very interesting:

I do not know what happened to the box. But I do know this: If Hauptmann destroyed it, then he did the one really clever thing in in a case in which he had shown very few signs of genuine cleverness. For the destruction of that uniquely designed box would mean the destruction of evidence against him more damaging than anything with which he was confronted during the entire case…¹

In my opinion, there is much of value here. First, in showing that he is still lying about the box being “unique,” and what he said about the “destruction” of that box. This strikes me as a form of projection on Condon’s part and tells me beyond any doubt that it was destroyed after being retrieved from the boxwood bush at St. Raymond’s Cemetery.

Section – The Condon Investigation

*While Harold C. Keyes was working for Hauptmann defense attorney Lloyd Fisher as an investigator, Keyes discovered a man named Joseph Marrone. Marrone was a Bronx painter and part-time taxi driver who had known Condon for at least 25 years.¹⁷ Marrone had been a regular at the Bickford Lunchroom for the “past few years” and recounted the following:

During the year 1932, and particularly subsequent to May 2, 1932, while patronizing the said Bickford Lunch, I on at least ten occasions, observing Richard Bruno Hauptmann in the said Bickford Lunch, accompanied by a lady. I distinctly on four different occasions at least being in the said Bickford Lunch when Richard Bruno Hauptmann and Dr. John F. Condon were present, and both of them were in a position to have seen one another.

On one occasion, in or around this time, the lady that accompanied Hauptmann dropped an umbrella, and Dr. Condon asked me to pick up the umbrella and give it to the lady which I did.

Dr. Condon could not but help see Hauptmann on these four occasions and should have recognized Hauptmann as the man “John” whom it is alleged he turned over the ransom money to in St. Raymond’s Cemetery, but Dr. Condon showed no signs of recognizing the said Bruno Richard Hauptmann as “John.”

I also seeing on two or three occasions the Dodge automobile of the said Bruno Richard Hauptmann, parked in the vicinity of the Bickford Lunch Room. On one occasion, particularly, Hauptmann’s car was parked directly in front of the Bickford Lunch Room, on the Webster Avenue side.¹⁸

*The slip of paper which belonged to Condon’s former pupil George V. Villiers

and was discovered among Hauptmann’s possessions is a clue that should never get past any interested researcher. Here was an extremely valuable piece of evidence that indirectly linked Hauptmann to Condon. When did Hauptmann get it? And why did he have it? Could this be just another coincidence or something more sinister? Regardless, I don’t believe it unreasonable to think that Condon, Villiers, and Hauptmann should have all received more attention concerning it, especially when one considers yet another connection hiding in plain sight: Whitey McManus.¹ Once again, my good friend Siglinde Rach unselfishly shared her research with me:

“Whitey” was the bank clerk who dreamed of becoming a stationary engineer and who allegedly sat in discussion with Jafsie and others on the night of March 1, 1932. I just found out that “Whitey,” whose real name was Thomas Francis McManus (born 1889), was George Villiers’s brother-in-law. “Whitey’s” sister Margaret was married to George Villiers. Here we have another close link to Jafsie and a connection to Hauptmann. These links couldn’t all have been mere coincidences.²

*Despite Hauptmann’s denials after his arrest, throughout the trial and beyond, in March 1936, Lloyd Fisher revealed that Hauptmann had finally itted he had seen Condon on City Island, both before and after the kidnapping.²¹ Although Hauptmann still did not it any personal interaction, the issue was that if Hauptmann had seen him, then undoubtedly Condon saw Hauptmann as well.²² Fisher also revealed to the press that he had a new witness who had seen Hauptmann and Condon both at Frederick Hahn’s restaurant before the kidnapping. According to Fisher, this informant claimed that Hauptmann had often been there playing cards and that Condon had come in on some of those occasions.²³ Although I have never been able to find the name of this witness, and while this does not show interaction between Condon and Hauptmann, it does place them together in the same venue before the kidnapping.

Section – Samuel Garelick

*It was during one of my numerous searches in the closet at the NJSP Archives that I found a “Please Destroy” copy of the Mercer County grand jury testimony. This grand jury concerned Paul Wendel’s confession about the kidnapping. All sources concerning any aspect of this crime are important, as exemplified by use of this testimony in V1.²⁴ Here, after testifying that he believed Richard Hauptmann “couldn’t have committed the crime as charged,” Governor Hoffman responded to a question which concerned John Condon:

Doctor Condon had gone all about the country here picturing himself in March, exhibiting himself in furniture store windows – here is one of his circulars, Doctor John “Jafsie” Condon, now he can talk freely, answers all questions, advertising engagements.

When I wanted to talk with him it was then the only way he could talk to me was at his own home over a cup of coffee, he insisted in having present the Attorney General, and the Prosecutor of Hunterdon County, to act as his personal Counsel, and submit all questions, to be submitted to him in writing before the interview.

Under those conditions I knew very well I couldn’t obtain the thing I wanted, which was really an explanation of the discrepancy that existed in statements he gave the State Police, the Department of Justice, the New York Police, and a Bronx Grand Jury and the testimony he gave at the Flemington Trial, which was entirely different in many respects.²⁵

There is more valuable testimony here:

[Freeman]: Do you think it would be helpful to have Jafsie Condon interview

Wendel and see if he might or might not be the John they talk about?

[Hoffman]: I don’t think at this time, under the conditions with which Doctor Condon is surrounded, it would do any good to have him interview or see anyone because he is undoubtedly acting under very definite instructions. These precautions weren’t taken prior to the Flemington trial.

I have absolutely evidence that on December 15, 1934, which was nearly three months after Hauptmann had been arrested and twice interviewed by Hauck, Doctor Condon was still looking for the man he paid the $50,000. He went on one occasion to the Dade County Jail, Florida, where he attempted to identify a New Jersey man held there on kidnapping trial, a little fellow 5’3”, and attempted to identify him as the man to whom he paid the $50,000 in St. Raymond’s Cemetery.

They talk about force and improper methods, it might be well for some investigating authority to go very deeply into the methods under which Doctor Condon finally was induced to finally identify Hauptmann as the man to whom he paid the money.²

Section – The Return Home

*Important observations made by Hauptmann defense attorney Lloyd Fisher can be found throughout his many notes, letters, memos, and written observations. I find these to be particularly interesting:

Since the trial Condon’s statements have been issued almost daily and always contradictory. I personally heard Condon say in Dempsey’s Restaurant in New

York that he had never said Hauptmann was the kidnapper – only the man that got the money. He issued statements to the press that Hauptmann had sent for him three times from the death house to make a confession, which he later had to it was untrue.²⁷

Chapter 7 – Vacations, Finances, and Ransom Money Section – The Florida Trip

*On page 448 of V2, I mentioned the attempt at ing a possible $20 ransom bill in Newtown, Pennsylvania. I also mentioned the tag was recorded and the car’s occupants were later picked up in Philadelphia. One thing I did not mention was the tag read “6-X-8501” and…

It was ascertained through the State Police at Albany, N. Y. that this registration was listed under the name of Thomas Marsh, Ithaca Hotel, Ithaca, N. Y. That it was a 1929 Nash Sedan, Motor number 371755, Serial #-488544, Operator’s license #-1574950. The address given at the time was the Chesterfield Hotel New York City and that he was formerly of Binghamton, N. Y.²⁸

Section – Hauptmann’s Arrest

*I wanted to use this section as a springboard for a “teachable” moment as it involved the discovery of ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage by police. The story is well known, but it was author Jim Fisher who first revealed a new twist. He wrote that after Detective Petrosino discovered the packages of ransom money concealed in the garage, Sergeant Wallace drove to a pay phone to report this find to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf.² Fisher wrote that after this discussion, it was decided to “put it back like it was” then bring in Anna

Hauptmann and pretend to find the money “to get her reaction.”³ Once something new is presented, it is always important to ask certain questions. First, would police have engaged in such a dirty trick? The answer is a firm yes. Next, what is the source for this information? Fisher credited a June 1981 taped interview between Plebani³¹ and Wallace.³² It was in his footnotes that he made sure to write “the fact that the discovery of the ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage was staged for Mrs. Hauptmann was never made part of the official case record.”³³ However, it was Richard Cahill who asserted in his recent book, Hauptmann’s Ladder, that Fisher’s source “should be rejected as totally unreliable” because Wallace was asked “leading questions” and that, on the whole, the incident “sounds truly staged.”³⁴ Cahill therefore believes that Mrs. Hauptmann was present during the original search and watched the whole thing unfold as it happened.³⁵

So what’s the truth of the matter? First, I fully understand why Cahill is skeptical about the interview and why he would view it as suspect. However, Wallace had previously written several times to the NJSP and each time submitted notes to them outlining his recollections of the various events. As an example:

We were only in the garage a few minutes when Det. Petrosino felt behind the workbench & pulled out a newspaper and uncovering the wrapping was a quantity of ransom certificates. Wallace had been checking the blade of a wood planer & a nick was in the blade as described by Arthur Koehler during our conversation at meals at West Trenton in 1932. Wallace advised Petrosino neither one of us knew each other [sic], we would return the evidence and have Mrs. Hauptmann present when we discover the evidence.³

It was because of these communications and detailed recollections that the NJSP brought Wallace in to record his interview. On considering that Wallace was almost 80 at the time, there is no doubt that Plebani was guiding him through the questioning along the lines of the information, contained in his very own notes, which he previously provided the NJSP. Next, while it seems reasonable to believe that if one finds Wallace’s report on the subject and this ruse isn’t

mentioned there, then this would be a major factor in determining the truth. However, on many occasions a certain event would be recorded several different times throughout the course of the Lindbergh investigation. Sometimes the same officer would write about it in many places and this event was no different because Wallace authored at least four separate reports mentioning it. The first two prove that while Fisher was correct about this ruse, he was very wrong about it not being part of the official record. This is from Wallace’s earliest report:

Detailed by Col. Schwarzkopf to continue to Hauptmann’s home & make a complete search & was accompanied by Det. Jas Petrosino, N.Y. City Police & Agent Leon G. Turrou of Dept. of Justice & after they advised that they had searched the house while I questioned Mrs. A. Hauptmann, I suggested we search the Garage & after locating two packages of Gold Certificates they were replaced until Mrs. Hauptmann was present & then the two packages were pulled out & counted in Mrs. Hauptmann’s presence.³⁷

By reading all reports, from earliest to latest, one can see Wallace’s move to gradually scrub this ruse from the event.

After the officers had advised that they had searched the home, Detective Petrosino, Agent Turrou, Mrs. Hauptmann and the undersigned, were accompanied to the Hauptmann garage by Detectives Frank Dunn and Edward Murphy of New York City Police before entering the garage the undersigned questioned Mrs. Hauptmann about what person had use of the garage other than her and her husband. Mrs. Hauptmann advised that the garage was included in their rent and that no one else other than her and her husband had access to the garage.³⁸ A search was started at the garage about 11:40 A. M. and at 11:50 A. M. Detective Petrosino pulled out from a compartment on the south side of the garage between the second and third upright located above the work bench, two packages of gold certificates (10 dollar) containing 183 gold bills certificates and these certificates were wrapped in a New York Daily Mirror newspaper and New York Daily News of the dates June 25, 1934 and September 6, 1934. All the gold certificates were initialed by the officers present in Mrs. Hauptmann’s

presence.³

Section – Hauptmann’s Behavior

*I’ve always found Hauptmann’s actions throughout the case particularly interesting. For example, I examined the manner in which various ransom bills were ed, to see if he could have been the only person so engaged. I view his lack of skill baffling as it concerned the last group of bills, so carelessly spent and easily leading police directly to his door. I therefore don’t believe that he could have been doing this from the outset, and, if it had been him the entire time, what caused him to change all of his previous (and successful) methods? Hauptmann himself wrote the following:

Altogether I took about twelve or fifteen bills which I used. When I ed these bills, I never tried to hide my identity because I saw no reason for doing so. As we lived on the outskirts of the City, I had made all the purchases since our baby came. I usually got most of these between 86th[?] and 89th Street and Third Avenue. I am quite sure that business people there knew me. Indeed I left my car standing in front of these stores for hours after I had put my purchases in it. I went with my wife and her niece to buy shoes. I had previously been in this gas station where I gave one of these bills because it was only two houses away from the house in which the Henkel family and Fisch lived.⁴

Hauptmann asked how any “clear-thinking person” could consider that he was ing Lindbergh ransom money, but, for me, he was asking the wrong question. He should have asked why he wouldn’t start laundering the ransom that was obviously left to others previously.

Chapter 9 – The Writing on the Wall

*Another source which backs up the position that only Condon’s phone number had been written on the closet trim by someone other than Hauptmann is included in one of Lloyd Fisher’s unpublished documents. This document outlined various points that Hauptmann had supposedly complained about to Fisher. I say “supposedly” because I suspect that documents such as these, attributed to Hauptmann, instead originated with Fisher himself. Under the subsection “points in the evidence which impressed him as indicating the weakness of the State’s case” this is the very first point:

1. The telephone number on the inside of the closet door, the number of John Condon.⁴¹

One must ask themselves why the address in not included in this complaint. On considering that the man who wrote the phone number on Hauptmann’s closet trim itted this to Fisher, however, it is easy to see why.⁴²

Chapter 10 – Isidor Fisch ⁴³ Section – George Steinweg

*On page 574 of V2, there’s an unfortunate typo I need to correct. In evaluating the Steinweg , I wrote that Fisch and Uhlig reserved their tickets to on “August 18, 1934.” This of course should have been August 18, 1933.

*An acquaintance of both Richard Hauptmann and Isidor Fisch was a man by the name of John Chizacky. Chizacky lived in Garfield, New Jersey, and he and his wife Sophie were friends with the Henkels and visited them often. It was at the Henkel apartment that Chizacky met Hauptmann and Fisch.⁴⁴ Chizacky revealed that Henkel and Hauptmann had come to New Jersey, stayed overnight with him, then went hunting with him the next day “sometime during the month of November of 1932.” He described Hauptmann as…

…a dull cool German individual who was a poor mixer and did not make himself conspicuous.⁴⁵

Chizacky also added that he was told Hauptmann was making “big money in stock market investments.” Police noted in their report that he further informed them:

Hauptmann impressed Chizacky as being dull and stupid and he had requested Henkel not to bring him to his home again.⁴

Once it came to his experiences with Fisch, he had some interesting things to say:

He stated that Fisch was a very talkative man, boastful and always thought that he knew most about everything. From Fisch’s appearance and his very bad cough, he believed that he was suffering from consumption.⁴⁷

Sergeant Albrecht later returned to Chizacky, inquiring about Hauptmann’s license and their hunting trip. Chizacky told Albrecht that he believed Henkel and Hauptmann purchased their licenses at aic Sporting Goods, adding that

the three of them went to Oakland and the vicinity of Ramsey to hunt. Albrecht wrote in his report that this trip placed Hauptmann “in New Jersey” on both “November 9th and 10th” and also on “October 10th” the day they went to the sporting goods store.⁴⁸ Chizacky made sure to impress upon the investigator that…

…Hauptmann was a stupid German who would not enter into conversation until broached by another.⁴

During the Hoffman investigation, among the many people who assisted was former NJSP Detective William Codd. Codd had worked on the Lindbergh case prior to his departure from the force.⁵ In V2, I included Hauptmann’s assertion that Fisch’s trip to was rooted in the fur business. Hauptmann claimed Fisch was intending to start an import-export trade through his brother Pinkus, then return to America.⁵¹ Among other things, Codd’s interview with Chizacky proved to be another source for this:

He also stated that Fisch went to with the intention of returning with his brother to start some business. Fisch did not flash any money or appear richer after the paying of the ransom, but Chizacky explains that Fisch always tried to give an opinion that he was making lots of money and always had money making schemes.⁵²

Codd believed Chizacky wasn’t telling him all that he knew, apparently because he wasn’t familiar with him. However, he did let him know what he thought of Fisch:

Knowing the scheming and conniving attitude of Fisch he believes that Hauptmann was gullible and would fall for any easy money which Fisch may suggest to him.⁵³

As we can see, Chizacky’s puts the many sides of Isidor Fisch on full display.

2 The “Perfect” Child

We have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood we hid ourselves. Isaiah 28:15

The Flight

After Charles Lindbergh’s legendary solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927, another famous flight took place on April 20, 1930, in a new low-wing monoplane Lockheed Sirius that Lindbergh planned to fly at altitudes of “20,000 feet.”⁵⁴ As reported by The New York Times, Lindbergh, accompanied by his wife and copilot Anne, set the transcontinental record at “14 ¾ hours” by flying “180 miles an hour at 14,000 feet”⁵⁵ – the couple sometimes reaching altitudes “higher than 15,000 feet” to take “advantage of the thin air,” according to The Washington Post.⁵ For Lindbergh, the purpose of this flight was to use both his wife and himself as test subjects for the “speed and efficiency” of their Sirius plane “above storm areas, in rare atmosphere.”⁵⁷ Lindbergh believed that “high altitudes mean high speeds” and this flight was meant to prove it.⁵⁸ Ultimately, the speed record was broken by over three hours with Lindbergh hailed as a “genius” after proving himself correct about high altitude travel.⁵ But it was not without a cost. The Lindberghs flew so high and so fast that their barograph broke due to the “excessive vibrations” inflight. Gasoline fumes also leaked into the cockpit, adding to the suffering that Anne, seven months pregnant with her first child, had to endure:

I was about to have a baby, and I was just terribly seasick, but I knew I couldn’t

complain, because that would spoil the record, and it would also prove I was a weak woman, which I didn’t want, either. So, we got there and it was all right. ¹

It’s interesting to see, in Anne’s own words, that one of her biggest fears was being labeled “weak.” But was it “all right,” or rather, was she all right? In his book Lindbergh: A Biography, Leonard Moseley writes that Anne was “tempted” to “plead” with Lindbergh to land the plane due to her unbearable discomfort. ² My conclusion is that had she done so, this would have created a scenario where Lindbergh himself would have looked weak, which he wouldn’t have stood for in any circumstance. Therefore, he would have most certainly ignored Anne’s pleas.

sca Carey, daughter of entrepreneur William F. Carey, who revitalized New York’s Sanitation Department as well as Madison Square Garden, gave an interesting of what happened when the Lindberghs finally landed. Sometime in April 1930, Carey spoke to John William Larner, who, at the time, worked at North Beach Airport, which was under the development of the Madison Square Garden Corporation. sca claimed she was friends with one of Anne Lindbergh’s sisters, who “called her in the night” to provide her with the details of the Lindberghs’ flight. Larner couldn’t recall which of Anne’s sisters Carey spoke to, but wrote in his letter to Governor Hoffman that either Constance or Elisabeth Morrow told her:

The day before Lindbergh & his wife had flown from Burbank Cal. to Roosevelt Field – in 18 hours & some minutes under very adverse weather conditions in the Eastern part of the country. They stopped but once at Kansas City or Wichita for fuel. Anne being several months pregnant was in a highly hysterical condition when the ship landed at Tel. [sic] – This Ship was taxied directly into a hangar and the doors closed. Lindbergh lifted Anne out of the cockpit and lowered her to the Morrow Chauffeur – they carried her out the side door to the Morrow car. The curtains were drawn. The car proceeded out the corner gate and the gate was locked some time [illegible] before the press cars could get out. By that time the Morrow Car had disappeared. It proceeded to Stapleton Staten

Island. ³

This story concluded with Anne supposedly giving a “premature” birth in a “nursing home or private Sanitarium.” ⁴ This is consistent with other similar rumors at the time, but was this rumor started by one of Anne’s sisters, an invented tale or embellishment from sca Carey, or possibly even from Larner, who represented it as coming from her? Another piece of information provided in this report is that Anne’s father, Dwight Morrow, Sr., sent a cablegram to Lindbergh in California “expressly forbidding him to allow Anne to accompany him East in the plane,” Lindbergh replying that Anne was “no longer a Morrow” but now “a Lindbergh.” ⁵ Both the landing and the rumor of premature birth are discussed in Scott Berg’s laudatory biography, Lindbergh. Although there are some differences, Carey’s version sounds close enough to Berg’s to be believable, yet Berg dismisses the as merely a “canard.” But Anne herself made mention of it in a May 12, 1930 letter, in which she describes a phone call from a reporter who asked if her child had been born that April, further inquiring if “something had happened to it.” ⁷ While history records this premature birth as untrue, how and why did this rumor start? Was it because of an assumption made by those who witnessed her condition upon exiting that plane? Or was it something coming from a trusted source, as Carey’s asserted? This flight was on the minds of the entire country even well after Hauptmann’s execution, Governor Hoffman receiving letter after letter with inquiries such as this:

Was curious as to the mental and physical condition of the baby; a defective baby would be a serious handicap to famous parents from whom the World would expect a prodigy, and the father might be tempted to simulate a kidnapping to remove the baby from the public eye and have it cared for in seclusion. The mother continued to fly during pregnancy, and according to oldfashioned midwives, this would be liable to impair the off-spring both mentally and physically. ⁸

Those afraid of this possibility flatly reject it as nonsense. But a situation in

which an expectant mother flying higher than 15,000 feet in an unpressurized cockpit filled with gas fumes is one that should, at the very least, give rise to serious questions about the subsequent health of her child. Furthermore, if one studies the social beliefs widely held at the time regarding “problematic” children, they would not see the above scenario as far-fetched. The scenario becomes even more believable when one considers Lindbergh’s personal attitudes on the subject.⁷ However, given Charles Lindbergh’s stature as national hero and American icon, it is, for some, practically seditious to ask these kinds of questions, and people who do usually draw some form of personal attack against their character and motives, as a way to either end the conversation or prevent the topic from being raised again in the future.

The Birth

In Anne Lindbergh’s published diary, Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, she included a June 10, 1932 letter she wrote to her mother-in-law, Evangeline Lindbergh. Anne shares that Lindbergh would use the code name “Reuben Lloyd” to sign a coded message indicating whether the child was male or female, to keep the birth quiet until the “legal ing” was “given out.” If a boy, the phrase would be “advise purchasing property,” and if a girl, “advise accepting of contract.”⁷¹ In the same letter, Anne writes she and Lindbergh were thinking of naming a girl “Anne,” but, if a boy, there would be “no question” because that had already been “decided from the first: just exactly the same.”⁷²

The day Charles Lindbergh, Jr. was born—June 22, 1930—Anne was at Next Day Hill, her family home in Englewood, New Jersey, with Lindbergh and her mother Elizabeth at her side during the “entire eleven-hour labor.”⁷³ Several medical professionals were there to assist with the delivery. Marie Cummings had been hired as a nurse for the “pending arrival” of the baby and stayed with Dwight Morrow’s sister, Mrs. Yates, until the morning of June 22 “when on that day Mrs. Charles Lindbergh gave birth to Charles Lindbergh Jr.”⁷⁴ Dr. E. M. Hawks was the attending physician who delivered the child.⁷⁵ Also present was Dr. Paluel Flagg, an anesthesiologist. It was at this time he became acquainted

with Lindbergh and, in a later interview with The New York Times, “reluctantly itted” that he put Lindbergh in touch with Nobel Prize-winning biologist and staunch eugenicist Dr. Alexis Carrel.⁷

But there’s something strange here. Charles Lindbergh, Jr.’s birth certificate was signed by “Everett M. Hawks” on June 24, 1930, and received at the local registrar’s office the next day. It lists the child as “Male,” born on “June 22, 1930” in “Englewood” to “Lindbergh, Charles Augustus,” and “Morrow, Anne Spencer.” But the child’s name is not recorded on the certificate, that line simply left blank.⁷⁷ The newspapers were fully aware that the child had not been named, an Associated Press article explaining that this was due to indecision over whether to use “Dwight” or “Augustus” as the middle name.⁷⁸ Eight days later, it was reported that there was still “no decision as to the name of the child.”⁷ It wasn’t until July 9 that the press finally announced that the baby would be named “Charles Augustus Jr.”⁸ Since Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead is usually the “go to” source for all information concerning the child, this seems to prove that this source is not always reliable. However, it certainly seemed reliable on this point, but perhaps something changed.

Meanwhile, expectations for this child were incredibly high. Consider, for instance, the Reverend Dr. Clarence Barbour, president of Brown University. Barbour was a prominent figure, advocating for birth control and sterilization of those who were degenerates, feebleminded, defective, inferior, incompetent, or otherwise undesirable. To Barbour, such people were “dead wood,” and he believed laws regulating this issue were “inevitable.”⁸¹ However, according to Dr. Barbour, it was the stock of Charles and Anne Lindbergh that exemplified a child of both “wealth and promise” who would inevitably be someone who made a “notable contribution,” useful to all “humankind.”⁸² More speculation focused on what profession the “Eaglet” might choose. Noted child psychologist Dr. Arthur Frank Payne said Charles Jr. was less likely to become an aviator and more likely to become a professor.⁸³ There can be no doubt that Lindbergh had similarly high hopes, reading these kinds of newspaper articles and listening to these predictions over the radio. It must have been music to his ears – or at least should have been.

High Fields (Highfields)

Anne’s August 3 letter to her sister Constance mentions going to “Princeton” to search for land to build a house.⁸⁴ On October 13, 1930, The Daily Princetonian reported that the Lindberghs purchased “150 acres” of land near Mount Rose, but added they attempted to keep this purchase a secret.⁸⁵ However, according to the Mercer and Hunterdon Country deed books, it appears this report was incorrect. On “October 7, 1930” only “part” of the property had been purchased for the Lindbergh estate, and on “October 10” the lease for the Mount Rose home was signed in the name of “Murray,” the Lindberghs’ Princeton real estate agent.⁸ A total of 13 additional tracts in both Mercer and Hunterdon counties were purchased at different times between March 5 and March 24, 1931. These, together with the original land purchase, made up the entire estate.⁸⁷

Once completed in December 1931, the Lindberghs’ house, Highfields, sat secluded on the Hunterdon County side of the Mercer-Hunterdon County border, located about “three and one-quarter miles from Hopewell,” a town about “ten miles northwest of Princeton.”⁸⁸ Also nearby was the State Village for Epileptics, about “three miles from Hopewell,” in Skillman.⁸ After the Lindbergh child disappeared, police conducted numerous and lengthy investigations at Skillman, lasting through the summer of 1934, focusing on staff and patients alike.

The Living Child

Another strange fact concerning Charles Lindbergh, Jr. was that his father referred to him as “It.” In George Waller’s book Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case, the author attempted to normalize this “pet name” by suggesting that Lindbergh felt that his plane, The Spirit of St. Louis, was a living thing, which was why he used the pronoun “we” when referring to both himself

and the plane. This, according to Waller, somehow meant the use of “it” symbolized the “closeness and love” Lindbergh felt for the baby. ¹ In Brant and Renaud’s The True Story of the Lindbergh Kidnapping, the authors wrote that while everyone else called the baby “Charlie,” Lindbergh also used “It” whenever “speaking of or to his son,” a name no one else ever used. ² Lindbergh also had a lack of physical with his son prior to his first birthday, one author attributing this to being “too frightened” of him. ³ In any event, I hear Lindbergh’s “pet name” for his son and immediately reminded of his actions at the morgue, when identifying his son’s body. Lindbergh strolled in, surrounded by the stench of death permeating the room, and remained completely unemotional. ⁴ Any normal person would have been in anguish looking upon their murdered child, even setting aside the horrible condition of the body, but Lindbergh “never shed a tear.” ⁵ He “did not even flinch at the sight” and simply asked for a “meat skewer” from the autopsy tray, using it to slice open the corpse’s lips to count the teeth. ⁷ Rather than his own child, it was as though Lindbergh was an examining a thing, an object – an “it.”

Much of Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead documents how spectacularly healthy Charles Jr. was, and many researchers trot out these references to neutralize the s that the actual facts generate. If one reads Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead looking for proof of the baby’s excellent condition, a natural progression is found of all the positives that one would expect. The child grows both physically and mentally as he should. He walks, talks, and is healthy – healthier and healthier as time goes by. But there are some points that need to be looked at more closely before drawing any conclusions.

The Missing Child

Betty Gow’s “Friend”

Among the NJSP’s more valuable assets was Deputy U. S. Marshall Wayne

“Tiny” Benson. He lived in the Hopewell area, knew it well, and was familiar with most, if not all, of the locals. Benson offered his full cooperation to investigators and even the use of his Buick four-enger coupe to Major Schoeffel. Of all the calls to the temporary phones in the Highfields garage, many were from Benson. On March 5, 1932, at 9:15 AM, Trooper Jackson took one of his calls, logged here:

Deputy U. S. Marshall Benson phoned from Hopewell, Phone # 3 wished to inform Major Schofel [sic] that there is a girl in Princeton, who is a personal friend of Miss Gow and that this girl is employed by a family named Patton who lives on the Rosedale-Princeton Road, and that this girl had been talking around the vicinity of Princeton that the Lindbergh Baby was a Deaf Mute. Requested to know if we wanted this girl picked up. Advised that we did not know at this time. JHJ ⁸

For reasons I believe can be gleaned from my two previous volumes, the police did not act on this tip and Benson never picked this girl up. However, although I’ve never been able to determine why, Captain Lamb did order Detective DeGaetano to investigate this matter a year and seven months later. Strangely, they did so without the assistance of Benson. This time lapse and lack of assistance from the man who was willing to pick the girl up took a heavy toll on the investigation. Instead of looking for this girl in Princeton, Detective DeGaetano originally attempted to locate her in Hopewell without success. He then searched the post offices at Pennington, Blawenburg, Skillman, Belle Mead, and Princeton “which also proved unsuccessful.” However, he was able to find a “George Batten who resides on the Rosedale Road near Princeton between Mount Rose and Princeton, N. J.” Following up, DeGaetano found that Batten was a “cripple” but “well to do,” now living in a “fairly large mansion.” Batten told DeGaetano that he formerly resided in Princeton and moved to his present address after the estate was completed. Batton’s wife was interviewed, revealing that she had a nursemaid named “Marion Meghan,” who she employed for three years but who quit in September 1932 to marry a man named Harry Stout. She did not think this girl knew Betty Gow because she was “talkative,” usually “telling her everything,” but had never mentioned Gow.¹ DeGaetano, found Marion Meghan living in Princeton with her husband. She told DeGaetano that

she was born in Pennington in 1911 to “Thomas Meehan” and “Mary McNamara,” both deceased. She claimed that she was employed by Mrs. George Batten at their residence on 1 Evelyn Place in Princeton, and continued working for them when they moved to their present address, until September 10, 1932, when she married. She flatly denied ever knowing Betty Gow, stating she rarely had any time off and spent what little she had with her boyfriend, now husband.¹ ¹ With this, the investigation into this this aspect of the case ended.

The Doctor

As I’ve previously written, there were thousands upon thousands of letters written to the various authorities concerning this case. Many were from cranks and full of useless information. A few seemed promising but, in the end, provided little for investigators to go on. As a researcher, it is very difficult to review these letters, which invites the temptation to simply skip over them and move on to more “important” material. Having read each and every letter at the NJSP Archives, nobody understands that more than I. But occasionally, there seems to be one letter that can be backed up by something else, or points in a direction that eventually bears fruit. That being the case, everything must be considered or one risks the possibility of missing something.

I once stumbled onto a letter to Lindbergh from a cab driver named Abraham Munchek:

I am a cab driver and a year ago a cab driver said when your baby was born that the baby won’t last long but I never tought of it untill now. You had a doctor calling to your house for about a week in scusision with a cab that’s the man that told me. If you can the doctor that came to you when your baby was born. I hope you have success I wish you would keep my name and address secret because I am afraid.¹ ²

Here we have one of those second-hand s where someone was told by someone else about something. As such, it is one of those letters that could easily be shrugged off. And yet, it came before the child was discovered, and while my mind goes directly to the child’s health when reading it, I am not so sure that’s where Munchek’s thoughts were. However, after the child’s body was discovered, New York police paid a visit to Munchek’s home to interview him. He stood by his story but told the police the cab driver in question was unknown to him.¹ ³ Munchek was also under the impression that this doctor was being driven to the “Lindbergh Home” in Hopewell and that the driver was being paid “$10.00 for each trip.”¹ ⁴ So here we are left in the exact same position as the police and, since Munchek could not provide any further information, the officers believed none of what he provided would “aid” them in “this case.”

It was later in my research into the prosecution’s trial preparation that I discovered Dr. E. M. Hawks’ statement to Robert Peacock, which caused me to do a double take. While it doesn’t mean Munchek’s is true, it is certainly an interesting consideration.

[Peacock]: Did you ever attend the Lindbergh baby?

[Hawks]: I delivered the child.

Q Do you the date of birth?

A I can get it for you – June 24, 1930 [sic].

Q After birth – did you make any examination of it later in its life?

A Yes.

Q Can you tell me how many times?

A I saw the baby every day for –

Q Not during the confinement – later as it got older?

A No – I turned the baby over to a baby man. I saw the baby several times afterward but I never made a business of examining it.¹ ⁵

When Peacock used the word “confinement,” we can reasonably assume that he’s referring to the period covering the child’s birth until the time Marie Cummings claimed she stopped caring for Anne, on “July 30, 1930.”¹ If so, and Dr. Hawks saw the child “every day for -,” it’s possible he could have been taking a taxi to Englewood from his office in New York City during that time. Another phrase that stands out is Hawks saying he “turned the baby over to a baby man,” which, at first, seems to make sense: A wealthy family using the services of one of the best pediatricians in the country. Even so, despite care and all the luxuries wealth affords, despite the diet, daily sunlight, and a sun lamp, the Lindbergh child, right up to the time of the kidnapping, was afflicted with a condition history records as “rickets.”

If we make a sincere effort to trace Charles Lindbergh, Jr.’s health, we discover

some very interesting facts. First, in her book, Anne Lindbergh mentioned the baby “developed small trouble” and her mother took him to the “baby doctor.” The letter appears to have been written on July 30, 1930, when the child was only five weeks old. Anne also wrote that although she wept over the situation, the doctor reassured them it was a “very small thing.”¹ ⁷ We know that the nurse, Marie Cummings, left on the same day as this letter. According Mrs. Jung, she had been terminated due to the fact “the child was declining under her care.”¹ ⁸ Cummings was replaced by Annette Copin, credited by the Morrow staff with restoring Charles Jr.’s health, specifically noting the child’s “weight” had improved under her care.¹ It was during Copin’s employment, on August 20, that Anne wrote in a letter that the baby was “gaining much better than he did when I nursed him.”¹¹ However, instead of blaming Cummings, she suggested that it may have had to do with her breast “abscess,” concluding that the baby looked “splendid” and not “thin.”¹¹¹ In the next letter worthy of note, on September 9, 1930, Anne wrote to her mother-in-law that the baby was “twice as big” and “getting a lovely sun tan.”¹¹² Indeed, based upon all of the home movies and photos publicly available, there is no doubt this child was outside often.

The Pediatrician

Dr. Philip Van Ingen was one of the best pediatricians in the country, having “attended” the child after taking over from Dr. Hawks.¹¹³ Thereafter, the Lindberghs “brought him in to see” Dr. Van Ingen “every so often” so that he could examine Charles Jr.¹¹⁴

Particularly at the height of the Great Depression, not many children were as fortunate as Charles Lindbergh, Jr., born into vast wealth and privilege. He was given a proper diet and plenty of sunlight. However, Anne had stopped breastfeeding; therefore, this gave rise to speculation. Was the child put outside because he was not getting the proper amount of Vitamin D? This, the argument goes, occurred because formula “wasn’t supplemented with Vitamin D” as it is today, supposedly meaning the child did not get enough Vitamin D, which is why he was afflicted with “rickets.”¹¹⁵ But this does not add up. First, while we

don’t know what was in the formula being fed to Charles Jr., Dr. Van Ingen was certainly aware. Van Ingen was not only a practicing “baby doctor,” but had been a professor of pediatrics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University the decade prior. By 1932, he was one of the directors of the Board of Pediatrics and was a founding member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, ultimately becoming its president in 1937.¹¹ Next, it is clearly reflected in his letter to Mrs. Morrow that he was fully aware of the effects of Vitamin D because his recommended diet for the child ends with “one teaspoon of cod liver oil” given daily.¹¹⁷

Now the question remains as to how a child raised under ideal conditions could develop “rickets” in the first place. One would think his routine examinations, daily exposure to sunlight, and other later dietary measures should have prevented any such condition from ever occurring.

The answer may lie within the original diagnosis of rickets. In most cases, the disease occurs due to the lack of sunlight or Vitamin D in the diet. However, there can be additional factors which cause or contribute to this condition— another, independent condition, such as certain kidney or liver disorders, which prevents the body from absorbing Vitamin D. Furthermore, certain medications such as anticonvulsants or other drugs could affect or interfere with absorption. Of course, there are other variables or circumstances to consider, and it all depends upon the type, dosage, and duration of the medication taken. While I’ve never found any documentation concerning drugs being istered to the child, I do believe the possibility needs to be mentioned when looking at everything in its totality.

After Hauptmann’s arrest, the FBI believed the key to the story about the child’s health, as well as the possible cause of death, resided with Dr. Van Ingen. One example of this is a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, describing a telephone call he received from Francis Patrick Garvan, a former member of the Bureau of Investigation and former assistant United States attorney general. Hoover wrote:

I also mentioned to Mr. Clegg the matter of Phillip Van Ingen, the family physician of the Lindbergh and Morrow families; that he was a school-mate of Mr. Garvan at Yale University; that Mr. Garvan advised me that this doctor is rather shy, and if an investigator called to see him relative to the cause of death of the Lindbergh child, he probably would not give any information of value; that, however, Mr. Garvan suggested that I find out for sure that it was Dr. Van Ingen who examined the body, and if so, he, Mr. Garvan would take me to see the doctor, and probably obtain from him an interesting statement.¹¹⁸

We do have a couple of sources to consider about the child’s health. One is the previously mentioned letter to Mrs. Morrow which concerned his examination of the toddler on “Feb. 18,” which states that “except for height and chest” his overall development “was slightly delayed” and “his fontanelle” hadn’t been closed “although it ought to be closed by now.”¹¹ Another source was Van Ingen’s letter after examining the corpse, a letter police hoped to use as a means of positive identification. It was here Van Ingen mentioned that the “toes of the right foot overlap.”¹² (We know that although Van Ingen believed the corpse was that Charles Lindbergh Jr., he could not “swear” to it).¹²¹ He went over some of the characteristics during his pre-trial statement, such as “the little toes on both feet turned in and overlapped- turned towards the great toe,” that the Lindbergh child “had a square head which went with a moderate rickety condition,” and that “he was a rather spoiled youngster and it was almost impossible to get him to stand up straight” to get his measurements.¹²² As I mentioned in V1, it is extremely difficult to believe a child with so many rules and countermeasures to prevent him from becoming “spoiled” actually became so to the extent of being labeled as such. Perhaps his behavioral issues were the result of something else? Another point made in V1 was the fact that Inspector Walsh poked a hole in the skull with a stick during his attempt to move the corpse in the Mount Rose woods. No one believed this possible – not Dr. Mitchell, Walter Swayze, nor Prosecutor Hauck¹²³ – because they did not believe a stick could puncture the hard part of the skull, unless a medical condition caused it to become weak or brittle. It was only after Hauptmann’s trial began that everyone seemed to accept that a normal skull could be that fragile – an extremely lucky break for the prosecution.

Another point concerning Dr. Van Ingen involved a woman named “Edna Hamilton,” who wrote a letter to the NJSP saying she suspected Van Ingen of involvement in the kidnapping. Detective Sgt. Albrecht was dispatched to Hamilton’s home in Caldwell, New Jersey, to investigate. Mrs. Hamilton told Albrecht that Van Ingen “knew all about the Lindbergh home,” had “attended the baby during the absence of its parents,” and that she believed he planned the kidnapping for the “purpose of extorting $50,000.”¹²⁴ Albrecht found no basis for Hamilton’s rambling story, which also led to another involving personal aspects of her life. Albrecht learned that Mrs. Hamilton’s daughter Lola was an operator for the Englewood telephone exchange, that she lived in a room at “96 Engle St.,” “across the room from the Morrow chauffeur,” and that “she became acquainted” and “was keeping company” with the “house man” at the Morrow home. This led Albrecht to conclude, despite Mrs. Hamilton’s denials, that she developed her theory about Van Ingen based upon information coming from her daughter.¹²⁵ Police interviewed Mrs. Hamilton’s daughter, “Lola Norman,” living with Morrow chauffer Charles Ellerson and his wife. She explained that she became friendly with Mrs. Ellerson and, through Mr. Ellerson, met Morrow house man Thomas O’Callahan. She also itted she visited her mother in the company of the Ellersons on one occasion,¹² but denied that either Ellerson or O’Callahan ever spoke to her about the Lindbergh kidnapping.¹²⁷

But it seems impossible that neither ever discussed this topic with her. It seems reasonable that, by denying it, she is protecting her friends, boyfriend, and mother. Finally, as farfetched as Hamilton’s theory on Van Ingen sounded, it is obvious where she got it. Could it be she was not ing it correctly? Or was it fed to her as an indirect attempt by someone to steer police to toward Dr. Van Ingen?

The Bag and the Grave

As discussed in V1, the Lindbergh child’s makeshift grave was located about 75

feet into the woods along the Hopewell-Princeton road, the body partially buried facedown. One of the first things police noted when they arrived on the scene was a burlap bag on the side of the road.¹²⁸ That this bag could lie there undisturbed from the time of the child’s disappearance to the corpse’s discovery seems highly unlikely. First, “emergency telephone lines for the case” went right past the scene.¹² According to the telephone company, they began running these temporary lines on March 3, 1932, two days after the Lindbergh child went missing from Highfields.¹³ These lines were run just off the shoulder of the road, meaning the telephone men were within, at the very least, 75 feet of the corpse and practically on top of the bag, if either had been where they were ultimately found. Even more, the NJSP were routinely patrolling these phone lines to ensure no one was “tapping them.”¹³¹ This s the prevailing theory at the time that the child’s body was not always where it was found. While I cannot state all believed this, most did. The police were also mindful of “buzzards” and made every effort to investigate their activities as noticed or reported to them.¹³² Despite this, no such reported sightings ever led them to the corpse.

Forensics

The only articles found at the place where the body was discovered were the two articles of clothing on the body and a burlap bag lying on the ground approximately 50 feet away from the body toward the road. All leaves and surface dirt for a considerable radius about the spot where the body was found were gathered after a search and brought to these headquarters. They are now being dried and when dry will be submitted to chemists for analysis and study.¹³³

Greystone Park

On May 16, 1932, Sergeant Kubler of the NJSP was ordered to deliver two envelopes containing hair samples to Dr. Thomas B. Christian, a pathologist at

the Greystone Park State Hospital in Morris Plains, New Jersey. One envelope contained hair from Charles Lindbergh Jr.’s February 1932 haircut, the other contained hair removed from the head of the corpse.¹³⁴ Dr. Christian conducted both a “microscopical and chemical examination” of both samples and concluded they “are identical in all respects,” in size, texture, color, and chemistry.¹³⁵

Later, at Hauptmann’s trial, the prosecution planned to use Dr. Christian’s testimony in the event Hauptmann’s defense team challenged the identity of the corpse. As noted in their pre-trial preparation document:

Dr. Christian’s testimony not to be used unless identification is attacked.¹³

E.R. Squibb & Sons

On May 16, several items discovered at or near the grave were taken by Sergeant Kubler to E. R. Squibb & Sons in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and given to Director John F. Anderson for analysis. These items included a baby’s “undershirt,” a “body band,” two cardboard boxes full of “leaves” raked from the immediate scene, a large basket also containing “leaves” raked from the grave site, and six burlap bags full of “soil” which had also been removed from the area where the body was found.¹³⁷ Several human bones, as well as hair, were discovered among the leaves and soil submitted. Also among the items turned over was the burlap bag previously mentioned, discovered by Jersey City Detective Fitzgerald and picked up by Sergeant Zapolsky.¹³⁸ This bag was turned inside out and found to contain both “leaves and hair.”¹³ The bag was “spotted with soil,” some of which was “common in its microscopic characteristics to that of the immediate location.” However, some soil was also found to be a “black humus soil not found on any other object.”¹⁴

Bag soiled with reddish brown soil and with black soil. In some places the black soil overlies the reddish brown soil. The reddish brown soil consists mostly of fine sand with a small proportion of fine humus and corresponds to the types of soil found in the baskets of leaves and in the 5 bags, whereas the black soil on the bag is characterized by a large proportion of humus and the sand particles are 3 to 6 times larger than most of the sand particles found on the bones and in brown dirt on the bag – also many of the larger grains are colored yellowish brown as contrasted to the preponderance of white granules in the brown soil.¹⁴¹

Other observations included “white stitching,” the stenciling of “0224 O.J.L.” on the inside of the bag “12” from the top,” and “ANIMAL FOOD” on the inside “8” from the bottom.”¹⁴² No blood was found on any part of this bag. Black particles consistent with coal were found in the side seam “6” from the bottom of bag” and something that appeared to be “oat hull,” as well as oat like particles, were also found in bag’s seams and bottom. The leaves, twigs, and soil found inside the bag were examined. No blood was found on any of these items, but “numerous fine curly light brown hairs and locks of hair” matched the hairs discovered on corpse’s undershirt which had been earlier examined. The final discovery was that of a “phalange corresponding to foot of infant.”¹⁴³

Dr. Krogman

On May 25, 1977, NJSP Lieutenant Peterson packed up all the bone evidence from the scene of the Lindbergh child’s grave in 1932, originally submitted to Squibb for analysis, and brought it to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he gave it to physical anthropologist Milton M. Krogman for examination.¹⁴⁴ Dr. Krogman unpacked “(5) vials, containing a total of twelve (12) small bones” which he xrayed and examined.¹⁴⁵ According to Dr. Krogman’s report, five bones were from the foot, five were from the hand, and two bones were “probably wild fowl.” Krogman determined the bone found in the burlap bag was an “index finger” and concluded the hand bones were “probably of a white male.” He used the “Todd” standard to determine the age, which he estimated to be between “21 mos.” and “27 mos.” This, he believed, “is compatible with the stated age of 20

months” of the Lindbergh child, with an “acceptable range of variation.”¹⁴ His report’s cover letter states:

Especially do I wish to emphasize caution in stating race (white) and sex (male) in such immature material. On a comparative basis I’m pretty well on the right track for sex, but race is by me set on an odds-probability basis, i.e., frequency (chance) favors white over Negro. On age I am on sound grounds.¹⁴⁷

Dr. William Bass

In 1982, Dr. William Bass also had the opportunity to review the “remaining skeletal material thought to be that of the Lindberg [sic] child.”¹⁴⁸ His analysis agreed with Dr. Krogman’s. Bass’s only reservations concerned whether certain “immature bones” of the hand and foot could be accurately identified as being, for example, a “third or fourth metatarsal.” He “secured the hand and foot bones of a 20 month old male” and requested another visit to review this evidence in 1984.¹⁴

New Jersey State Police Central Laboratory Forensic Science Bureau

On April 25, 1977, the burlap bag was “tested with luminal reagent, examined microscopically, and selected areas treated with benzidine”; however, “no blood was detected.”¹⁵ Follow up examination took place the following month. Both “human and animal hairs were recovered from the burlap.” The human hairs

were compared with those from Charles Jr.’s “Feb. 23, 1932” haircut and were found to be a match.¹⁵¹ NJSP Forensic Chemist Alan T. Lane also noted an unusual feature of this hair—“little bumps along the hair shaft,” which he suggested might indicate “disease” or an “abnormality” of some sort.¹⁵² A final unique find was the presence of “white paint imbedded” in the fiber of the bag.¹⁵³

Other Items Found

The Shovel

The broken shovel referred to was handed to the Trooper guard at the scene by Chief Snook of the Hopewell Township Police Dept. who said he had received it from occupants of a N. Y. car parked out on the road. This was turned over [to] the Trooper in charge of the detail, who placed it at the base of a tree where it was found this morning. The occupants of the N. Y. car told Chief Snook that they were Jersey City Detectives but were recognized as reporters who had been working this case.¹⁵⁴

Lieutenant Keaten later explained to Special Agent Sisk that the NJSP had a “confession from the man who planted” the shovel, telling police he “received $5.00 from a New York reporter” to do it.¹⁵⁵ False clues like this were an added burden to already frustrated law enforcement. The fact that the Lindbergh child was dead was terrible news and police were in no mood for reporters making their jobs even harder. An example of this occurred on May 18, when a group of four detectives visited the grave site. They were immediately swarmed by reporters, and as John Ingram, a reporter for The New York American, approached the men to ask for information, he was told to “mind his own business” and physically assaulted by a “heavy-set” detective “wearing a gray suit.”¹⁵

The Gloves

There were several other items turned over to Squibb to be examined (e.g. burlap strips, ribbon, etc.). I’ve often wondered exactly where they were discovered, since all indications are that they were not located in the immediate vicinity. However, what was considered “immediate?” I have found several maps which may help answer this question. One such map has the phrase “Leon & Coar” written at the top and shows the location of the body and that of a “glove” due south off the road and as deep into the woods as the body. Police found another “glove” south of the first, still inside the tree line, the map showing where the road veers left, with “parts of bag” being found off the right shoulder there as well.¹⁵⁷

Newspaper Article

Another discovery was made on May 13, the day after the corpse was found. Approximately “50 yards” from the body, a crumpled section of a “New York World Telegram newspaper” dated “March 1, 1932” was located at the “foot of a tree” and “stuck between some small limbs.”¹⁵⁸ However, police felt this was another plant, engineered by reporters possibly to generate interest in their paper.

Diapers/Clothes

On May 16, Troopers Bornmann and DeGaetano were approached by Private Investigator Ray Sanderson, Hopewell local Clarence Hopf, and Sherman Altick, a reporter for The New York Sun. These men turned over a number of “baby’s

diapers, baby’s sleeping pads, two small baby’s shirts and a baby’s nightgown” which they found near the entrance to Robert Buffett’s lane, located very near where the corpse had been discovered.¹⁵ The next day, Charles Schippell, who also had a place nearby, was interviewed and claimed these items had belonged to his “little daughter which she had outgrown and which he had discarded and dumped where they had been found.”¹

E.R. Squibb & Sons (Again)

It wasn’t until October 1932 that police decided to have these items examined by Squibb Labs. They were tagged with a number and attention was particularly directed…

…in the examination of the above articles to the possibility of detecting nasal secretions, food materials, and blood stains but with the exception of tests which indicated the presence of mucous material on a piece of toweling (article #15) no positive tests for such materials on any of the articles were obtained.¹ ¹

It is important to note the timing of the decision to send these items Squibb. Did it mean they doubted Schippell or possibly suspected him of involvement in the kidnapping? Also of note is that Bornmann submitted an open pack of “Herbert Tarrington cigarettes” and “three pieces of candy” for examined as well. Where these items came from I cannot say, but I do believe it was near the burial site and very likely from the immediate area where the clothes had been discovered.¹ ² These items were specifically tested for “poison.”¹ ³ Tests were also made for the following:

Phosphorus, hydrocyanic acid, and cyanides, chloral hydrate, phenols, antimony, arsenic (4.1 parts per million in cigarettes), lead, tin, copper, mercury,

bismuth, cium, picric acid, barbituric acid derivatives, phenacetin, strychnine, atropine, aconitine, quinine, caffeine, nicotine (present in cigarettes), morphine, apomorphine.¹ ⁴

The conclusion was, aside from the normal levels of nicotine and arsenic in the cigarettes, that neither the candy nor the cigarettes contained poison.¹ ⁵ The obvious inference here is that police believed it possible that someone had poisoned the Lindbergh child. But if so, what was the reason to suspect the cigarettes had been poisoned as well?

The Corpse

Anne Lindbergh consistently proclaimed the child “normal,” “strong,” and “healthy” on page after page of her letters and diaries. But was a child with deformities on both feet and suffering from “rickets” considered “normal” by the standards of the time? More to the point, would Charles Lindbergh consider these things normal? Would he accept such imperfections and abnormalities? I think not, and anyone who asserts anything else is simply being disingenuous. Would Lindbergh actually think his son was “perfectly normal and healthy” just considering the foot deformities? No. An unbiased reaction came from Ellis Parker, on viewing the corpse in the morgue. Parker had never seen the child before but concluded that if the corpse on the table really was the Lindbergh child, then the baby had been “subnormal.”¹ This was the perception of many and one of the reasons why, over the years, there has been speculation that the corpse was not Charles Lindbergh Jr., but that of a different child.

That corpse revealed even more about the child’s health. In his first report, Dr. Mitchell noted the “unusually high & prominent forehead & cranium” that he believed was “greater in circumference than would be found in a child this age.”¹ ⁷ On the feet, the “first toe of the right foot completely overlaps the large toe” and “the second toe of the right foot partially overlaps the large toe.” The

“fontanel was not closed” and was “about one inch in diameter.”¹ ⁸ The child’s injury was described as:

…a fracture of the skull extending from the fontanel down the left side of the skull to a point posterior to the left ear where it bifurcated into two distinct fractures there was also a perforated fracture about a half inch in diameter on the right side of the skull posterior to the right ear, There was evidence of a hemorrhage on the inner surface of the left side of the skull at the point of fracture, the scalp was so badly decomposed that it was impossible to find any contusions or hemorrhagic conditions external to the skull…¹

The “left hand” was missing, as was the “left leg” from the “knee down.” The “right forearm” was “missing” as well. The genitals were also missing due to “decomposition,” with all “abdominal organs except liver missing” and all “thoracic organs except heart missing.”¹⁷

After Charles Lindbergh’s identification of the body at 4:00 PM on May 13, Dr. Mitchell wrote a second report the following day, which officially identified the corpse as that of the Lindbergh child. Much in this report echoes Mitchell’s earlier version, but there are some differences, such as “muscles of limbs and abdomen gone” “most of abdominal organs gone,” “overlapping of toes on right foot, first toe overrides the large toe.” Also included was the “fontanella [sic] [was] not closed,” that there was an “opening three-quarters of an inch in diameter” in the skull, that the “forehead was prominent,” and the “contour of cranium shows a head larger than normal in child of twenty months.”¹⁷¹ The injury was described as:

…a marked fracture of the left parietal and occipital bones, the fracture extended from the fontanelle across the left side of the head slightly – posterior to a point posterior to left ear, then it divided, a break going forward and one backward on the skull.¹⁷²

Dr. Mitchell specifically addressed the other injury as well:

There was a suspicious opening at a point about one inch posterior to the right ear, the opening was about one-half inch in diameter, somewhat rounded and resembled a bullet wound but, on examination of the cranial vault, I could not locate a bullet but the fracture of the skull was directly opposite this opening and could have been done by a bullet entering the right side of the skull, striking the inner table of the skull, and the bullet could have been lost in transportation of the body as the brains were exuding from the fontanelle and from the opening on the right side of the skull. The marked decomposition of the tissues would indicate in a person exposed to the elements that the child had been killed and left at the point where it was found for a period of from seven to ten weeks.¹⁷³

It is important to note Dr. Mitchell’s observations in his testimony during the Ellis Parker trial. He testified:

As for the sexual organs there had been a general decomposition of the soft parts of the body which had been destroyed by bacterial infection and probably animals and anything else that might have been in that neighborhood for a period of ten weeks or more.¹⁷⁴

Gone is the “seven to ten weeks,” with an added mention of animal involvement. This was also ed by the forensic examinations which mentioned animal hair and teeth marks. Several of the first people to see this corpse also raised this possibility. On discovering the body, William Allen, for example, stated that what he saw was “either decomposed or eaten by animals.”¹⁷⁵ Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe made the statement that “most of the flesh was gone and looked as if it had been eaten by animals.”¹⁷ Deputy Chief Charles Williamson made a nearly identical statement.¹⁷⁷

There is a lot to consider here and certainly much we do not know. But what we do demands discussion. As I’ve previously written, many view this subject as “off limits,” and any attempts at addressing the “elephant in the room” invariably meets with serious resistance and draws some sort of personal attack for even raising the issue. But I believe those against raising such questions about the Lindbergh kidnapping would have no problem doing so in any other case.

Charles Schippell

Due to his eccentricities and the location of his property near the burial site, Charles Schippell was on law enforcement’s radar.¹⁷⁸ Some unhesitatingly accused him of the crime,¹⁷ while others, after Hauptmann’s arrest, saw his picture in the newspapers and misidentified Schippell as Hauptmann.¹⁸ In April 1934, the NJSP was ed by Lieutenant Leo Rodweiller of the Princeton Police Department. Rodweiller had once lived next to Schippell and the two families were friendly. Rodweiller spoke to Schippell often and was alarmed at some of what Schippell said, sharing with police that:

He showed me where he said the Baby was dug up and put out along the road so it could be found. Also showed me the tree marked with a Broken branch. Also gave me the number of the pole in front of hole in the woods. A Joe Cerardi rented his house for over 3 months and Schippel [sic], wife and child stayed out in chicken house all the time.¹⁸¹

Detective DeGaetano interviewed Lieutenant Rodweiller, informing him that Schippell was “still under investigation” by the NJSP and thanking him for his cooperation.¹⁸² This directly contradicted Frank Wilson, who claimed Schippell had been “cleared of suspicion.”¹⁸³ Another mention of this “hole in the woods” came from a written statement Schippell made to private investigator Ray

Sanderson:

He also stated that the hole in woods and the marking of trees were identification marks for the burial of some one in that hole. He also stated the baby found was not the Lindbergh baby and he was pretty sure the body that was found was taken out of this hole.¹⁸⁴

As previously mentioned in V1, Squire Johnson was highly suspicious of Schippell and interviewed him several times. He told Governor Hoffman that Schippell did indeed “greatly resemble Hauptmann.”¹⁸⁵ Johnson was also aware that Schippell had “told at least two neighbors” that the Lindbergh child’s corpse had been “moved from a grave dug on ading property.” When Johnson questioned him on this point, Schippell downplayed it as being only his “theories.”¹⁸

The Various Interviews

*Martin Sheppard, an employee of the “Hopewell Orphanage Farm,” claimed that he was working there on either April 14 or 15 when…

…he began to see turkey buzzards flying around the approximate spot where the baby’s body was found.¹⁸⁷

He claimed he wasn’t the only one to witness this and provided the name of Jimmie Dorcey of Hamilton, New Jersey, as someone who should also be interviewed about it.¹⁸⁸

*Robert Hunt told police that “on or about April 18th, 1932,” he stopped about “300 yards” from where the child had been found to ask information of a woman walking past, when he saw “a car bearing New York plates (number unknown) parked in a side road nearby.”

Shortly after he stopped the car backed out and drove away. It was occupied by two men, one of whom was very clean-shaven and appeared to be a Jew. He was well dressed and wore either a grey hat and brown coat, or brown hat and grey coat.¹⁸

*John Immordino travelled from Pennington to Hopewell on the HopewellPrinceton road to make bakery deliveries. Immordino told police that he made two deliveries a day, one at 7:30 AM and the other at 2:20 PM. He only ed anyone near that spot on April 27, at 3:30 PM, when he saw an “old Packard Coupe parked there.”¹ He did not the tag number, but believed the car had New Jersey plates. He ed the occupants of the car as a man and a woman. Both were “about 40” and “heavy set.” The man had a small mustache and the woman red hair.¹ ¹

*George Pierson claimed that “about fifteen (15) days prior to the time of the finding of the baby” he was driving home from Princeton to Hopewell along with another man to whom he was giving a ride. According to Pierson:

…right opposite to where the body was found, there was a bundle in the road and he nearly ran over it. He was first tempted to go back and then changed his mind.¹ ²

After the baby’s corpse was discovered, Pierson spoke with J. B. Hill. Hill owned a lumberyard in Hopewell, and told Pierson that “twenty (20) days” prior, he had been at the “place where the baby was found” with his dogs and a couple

of his men to “dig out some decayed matter” to “put in the bottoms where he was planting some box bushes.” Hill believed if a body had been there at the time “they positively would have known it,” and that he later saw exactly where the corpse was found, even surmising the body was placed in one of the areas he dug out.¹ ³

Both Pierson and Hill decided they would report what they knew, but abandoned the idea because they believed police would reveal this information to reporters. They felt they’d be “harassed to death by the press and everybody else” and kept quiet.¹ ⁴ However, police did catch wind of Hill’s story from Dr. Robert Miller. Miller told Trooper Wolf that Hill’s son “Hervey” had his “trained hunting dogs in the vicinity of where the body” was found.¹ ⁵ Wolf interviewed Hill, “a lumber dealer in Hopewell,” who itted that he had “run his hunting dogs in that vicinity” but that they “never gave any sign of finding anything,” although they usually did, “finding dead animals at times.”¹

*Herman Viedt, Jr. owned a confectionary store in Princeton but lived in Hopewell, routinely driving past the burial site on his commute to work. At about 1:00 AM on May 4, Viedt was driving past the site when he noticed two cars, “one a buick sedan with a N.Y. license,” “dark” and “shabby,” the other was a “blue-black” “dodge touring car either a 1928 or 1929 model” with a Mercer County tag.¹ ⁷ Both parked cars faced toward Princeton, Viedt also claiming to see two men, one about 5' 8” or 5' 9”, the other shorter. He saw these two cars again on May 6, “parked at the same place on Mt. Rose Hill” and the “same two men.” Viedt next saw the men at the same spot on May 8. This time he was accompanied by his parents, who also saw them. On this occasion, one of the men coming out of the bushes was carrying a “white cloth” and wearing “a checker hunting jacket and a cap.” The other man “ran” to the side of the Buick and spoke with a woman inside.¹ ⁸ He last saw these cars again on May 10, once again at the same place. This time, the shorter man sat at the wheel of the Buick while the other, now without the checkered jacket, entered the woods as Viedt ed by. Viedt explained that he told others about these sightings before the child was found at this location. He said he thought that the man he saw going in and out of the woods looked “exactly like” the pictures of Hauptmann he had seen in the papers, but once shown a picture of Hauptmann’s car, Viedt said it

was not one of the cars he had seen.¹

*Police interviewed Mrs. Julia Rousel at her home in Mount Rose. She told police that she ed seeing “buzzards flying in the direction where the body was found,” about a week before the child was discovered.²

*Mr. and Mrs. W. D. Towbridge of Princeton went to the Penns Neck Station and reported to the desk that a “week ago last Thursday” (May 5) they were riding along “Mount Rose” Road ² ¹ when “they saw a man throw a bundle over the fence on the left side of the road.” They did not get a plate number but saw that it was a “Mercer County Reg. Sedan.”² ²

*Dr. Robert Miller of Broad Street in Hopewell reported to police that sometime prior to the body’s discovery, he was sitting in the rear of his home and noticed a figure walking across an open field “between his home and where the body was found on Hopewell-Princeton road,” placing the man about a half-mile away from the burial site. ² ³ Using a pair of field glasses, Miller saw the man was carrying “a bag over his shoulder with something in it.” As he continued to watch, the man stopped, placed the bag on the ground and started to drag it as he continued on. Miller could give no description of the man except that he wore a black hat.² ⁴

*A “few days” before the Lindbergh child was discovered, Garrett Schenck, who lived in Mount Rose at the time, claimed to have seen three cars parked very near where the body was later discovered. One was a tan car with an “M. G.” license plate, and another a “coupe.”² ⁵ On the opposite shoulder and facing the other direction was a “Ford Sedan with L license plates.” As he ed, Schenck saw…

…two men in the field walking from opposite directions facing each other. The

one walking towards Mount Rose was tall and thin with a dark complexion and looked like an Italian. The other was about 190 pounds, 5'9” tall. The stout man asked, ‘How is everything’ and the Italian answered ‘okay.’ It was very near the same spot where the Italian fellow was walking that they found the Lindbergh baby.²

*Police learned from Roger Batchelder, a reporter for The North American Newspaper Alliance, that Lillian LaRue, who worked as a live-in housekeeper for Robert Buffet and lived 300 yards south of the burial site, had “crossed the exact spot where the body was found” during her daily “wanderings” and that “several days before” the child was found the body was not there.² ⁷ Police interviewed LaRue, who itted that she “walks through the woods for flowers about once a week” but that she had “never” been near the scene and knew “nothing about the case.”² ⁸ However, a story ran on that very same day in The Evening Graphic that claimed “Mrs. Larue was positive body wasn’t there when she worked with spade in brush six days ago.” This article was complemented by a picture of LaRue standing at the grave site and pointing to it.² Two days later, Troopers Bornmann and DeGaetano returned to speak with LaRue. She told them “she goes into the woods for soil and flowers but she does not even yet know the spot where the body was found.”²¹

*Police also learned from Roger Batchelder that Elmer VanDyke, a truck driver for Mount Rose Trap Rock Company, told reporters that he saw a car near where the body was found on the morning before the child was discovered. Police interviewed VanDyke, who told them that he observed a “black Cadillac sedan about 7:20 A. M.” on May 12, and that it was “parked about 20 feet, in a southerly direction, from where the body was found.” This was all the information he had.²¹¹

*Former Highfields security guard Richard Hurley also said the baby “was put in the spot recently” because he had ed by that very spot numerous times on many of his routine walks through the woods.²¹²

*Finally, Morrow chauffeur Charles Ellerson claimed that while out driving with Olly Whateley only a day before the corpse was found, Whateley asked him to stop so he could answer a call of nature. Ellerson later learned they stopped “within fifty feet of where” the body had been found.²¹³

Tracing the Burlap Bag

To understand the efforts to trace this bag, we must jump ahead a couple of years, to New Jersey Governor Harold G. Hoffman’s involvement in the case. Hoffman ed Lloyd Fisher to learn more about this evidence:

I am enclosing some correspondence that would indicate that a blood-stained burlap bag was found in the vicinity of the baby’s body. I am wondering if you have ever heard this, and if you have had an opportunity to check it. Little or nothing has been said about this, and it seems to me that some importance should have been placed upon it.²¹⁴

Fisher responded:

I have your letter in reference to the burlap bag. I was never able to pin anybody down to this although we had the matter at hand at the time of the Curtis trial and again at the time of the Hauptmann trial.²¹⁵

Nothing better exemplifies how blind Governor Hoffman was concerning much of the evidence while Schwarzkopf remained head of the NJSP. Two weeks later, John A. Collins of Detroit wrote the governor. Collins, it should be recalled, was the Detroit prosecutor involved in the case as it related to Vaclav Simek.²¹ He advised Hoffman that the NJSP had possession of that bag since “May 14th

1932” and that it had been sent to “experts for detailed analysis.” Collins had no idea whether there was blood found on the bag, but suggested that the governor “take possession of that bag together with the analytical report” to find out.²¹⁷

Do not under any circumstances allow your investigators to interview anyone connected with the prosecution seeking an answer as to why this exhibit was not introduced at the trial. That would be suicidal. You establish the fact that human blood was found on that bag and I will make a special effort to meet you personally and tell you the story. You may be astounded. Some one on the side of the prosecution may be called upon to do some real explaining.²¹⁸

This was news to Hoffman, who had no idea the bag had ever been analyzed.²¹ Since we already know there was no evidence of blood in or on this bag, it may seem to invalidate this letter. But it most definitely should not. Collins’ point was about proof that this bag was connected to the child. Without knowing one of the child’s bones was found inside, Collins was assuming the proof would be blood. Reading this letter proves that Collins was aware that the NJSP had traced this bag.

The investigation of the burlap bag began in early June 1932. It had several identifying features. It was “7 ½ ounce burlap” measuring “27 x 36.” There was also the stenciled lettering “0-224-O.J.L.” as well as the words “Animal Food” on the lower part of the bag. Schwarzkopf sent a form letter to several companies and publications such as “Feedstuffs” and “Hoard’s Dairyman,” this resulting in some recognizing the lettering on the bag as that of the “KraftPhenix Cheese Corporation.”²²

The numbers on the bag translated as “0” for “1930” and “224” for the day of the year.²²¹ This bag was among 1,000 bags of powdered milk shipped out in two different 500 bag cars on August 16, 1930. One carload “CB&Q-131183” was shipped to “Larrowe Milling Company,” in Toledo, Ohio, and the other, “CB&Q-113554,” to “Consolidated Feed & Grain Company,” in Buffalo, New

York.²²² Police followed up with these two companies.

The Larrowe Milling Company informed the NJSP that several of these bags of dried skim milk or dried buttermilk went to many places. Police were most interested in those closest to Hopewell. These included Lenhartsville, Tower City, Shoemakersville, New Kensington, and Cressona, Pennsylvania. The only New Jersey town on the list was located far from Hopewell, in Daretown. No encouraging leads were found in any of these locations.²²³ It was learned that Consolidated Feed & Grain re-sold this shipment to Buffalo’s “Eastern States Co-op Milling Corporation”:

The Eastern States people do a re-shipping business in small lots, and evidently this bag was shipped in an assorted car of feeds to some retailer near Hopewell.²²⁴

In following this up, Schwarzkopf wrote a letter of inquiry to Eastern States Milling Corporation. They replied, explaining that a carload of 500 bags of powdered skim milk came to them in “CB&Q-113554”:

We are accustomed to empty this material from the incoming sacks and use it in feed mixing. The sacks are then cleaned, inverted and filled with some one of our manufactured products, usually either ground Oats or crimped Oats, and loaded forward to consuming points in New England, Pennsylvania or Delaware.²²⁵

The rest of the letter seemed to leave little doubt this bag originated from the Eastern States Milling Corporation:

We are accustomed to ship forward monthly or oftener, mixed cars of feed to

about 500 Eastern points which include Riegelsville, N.J., New Hope, Penna., and Wycombe, Penna. I understand the above mentioned New Jersey Station serves a group of our buyers in Pennsylvania, who unload at that point for convenience only. When unloaded the contents of our shipments do not customarily go into a feed store, but move directly to farms. The empty sack in question may then have ed to the point mentioned in your letter either directly from a farm or thru the hands of one or more secondhand bag collectors.²²

We now have obvious indications of a local connection to the Lindbergh kidnapping and why investigators held this belief from the outset. Of course, I would expect those who think this was a “lone-wolf” crime to suggest that Hauptmann stopped at a local farm for a key item in carrying out the kidnapping—a burlap bag he could not possibly have known was there.

Governor Hoffman

Alongside the entire country, Governor Hoffman was riveted by the Lindbergh kidnapping. On March 1, 1932, he was serving as the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commissioner and pledged his agency’s full cooperation with the NJSP. At the time, motor vehicle inspectors had certain police powers and investigated all crimes related to things such as automobile theft and possession of stolen cars. It was also common for inspectors to be assigned “special duty” status to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement.²²⁷ This led to numerous tips and sometimes t investigations, which pointed to a possible connection to the kidnapping.

One of the earliest articles to capture national attention was in Time Magazine’s November 1931 issue. It reported the widespread “rumor” that the Lindbergh child was “deaf” and by the time of his kidnapping still had “not learned to

talk.”²²⁸ This was blamed on “airplane motors” which caused “trauma” to the unborn child as Anne continued to fly when she was pregnant.²² Despite the constant rumors about the baby’s health, it was this article which caused them to fully take root. Other stories in the media repeated such claims, others also refuted them. The World Telegram said that one of their own reporters had seen the child and he was “perfectly normal.”²³ Family and friends also came to the rescue. Entertainer and radio personality Will Rogers claimed that during his mid-February 1932 visit with the Lindberghs the child played with blocks, was “jabbering around” just as one would expect “any kid of 20 months,” and was rugged enough to withstand his father “pitching a soft pillow at him as he was toddling.”²³¹

With all this talk of a defective child, when Governor Hoffman began his reinvestigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping, he had no qualms about entertaining the possibility that the child’s health was connected with his disappearance and death. As the public wrote in with tips, Hoffman did his best to run down any relevant information. One such piece of information came from Trooper William Lewis, who mentioned a rumor about the Morrow family having “suffered from epilepsy through several generations” and the possibility that the Lindberghs may have believed their son “inherited” it. Lewis suggested if that was the case, they might have come to the…

…conclusion that it was better to lose the child than to have it grow up to become an imbecile or a degenerate of some type.²³²

Something like this, however distasteful as it may be, called for investigation then, just as it does now. Bags of letters poured in each and every day, many with questions and assertions about the child’s health. Here are some examples….

Lowella Lookingbill wrote from Upland, California:

Information was given me sometime-since by office girl of one-doctor or “Doc” Bishop of Los Angeles, that Bishop had visited in the home of the Lindbergh’s just prior to the baby’s disappearance. “That the child was sub-normal and that the subnormalacy [sic] was a family secret.” That the child “could neither talk nor hear, had no ear drums-that the toes were much grown together and curled tightly downward as a bird clinging to a branch.” -end of quotation-²³³

While it appears this was something Mrs. Lookingbill heard, it was next to impossible to . Was it a lie, an exaggeration, or the truth? Here’s part of another from an anonymous source in New York City:

Put yourself in the place of the kidnapper- if you set out to kill the child, you’d have figured on disposal of the body, and at least carried a spade along to dig deep. But if you expected to hold the child for ransom, it would have to be hidden safely from everyone. Hauptmann couldn’t have taken the child home, so you must concede an accomplice, and where could they have hidden a child except on a boat, or in the depths of the forest, or among the haunts of criminals who would demand their cut-in on the spoils. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.²³⁴

Health professionals also wrote in with their ideas and input. From West Bend, Wisconsin:

I’m a middle aged man with a large family and have had a large practice and have seen among many almost unbelievable things and many peculiar actions in skull fractures.²³⁵

Another from Rock Island, Illinois:

When Colonel Lindbergh and Mrs. Lindbergh’s baby was born-there was considerable talk in this part of the child having something wrong-deaf, dumb, blind, abnormal, subnormal or what not – thinking no more of reports but when the supposed kidnapping and on the second day when Anne so nonchalant asked that her ill child be given some rare drops of medicine-after hearing how the governess was exonerated from all blame- how long they left their sick child alone in the room for several hours and when his disappearance was learnedLindy walks around in his yard-why didn’t he call for assistance at once and when they did-call-the estate was turned into a lawn party…²³

From San Antonio, Texas:

Was the child normal? A mute? Was it after death identified by its crippled feet? Was the two wounds on the dead child’s head caused by an operation? ²³⁷

An attorney from Washington, D. C.:

Col. Lindbergh’s wife was about to give birth to the baby in question. When she was taken by her husband on a trip in his airplane some surmised that she would be the mother of the first born baby in an airplane at that time. As to whether the excitement, and noise, and anxiety of that trip was beneficial to the baby about to be born while she was in that condition is something that we do not know. We also know very little about that baby after it was born.²³⁸

From Los Angeles:

It is too bad to think that Mr. Morrow’s family could be party to such a miscarriage of justice, but the Lindburg [sic] child was born a Mute, the father’s

sister told a friend of mine it was so, and that it had crippled feet.²³

All of this was just the tip of the iceberg. On and on it went, day after day. Any suggestion that sounded plausible drew a request from the governor for “further information,” through the mail or otherwise, and guarantees of “confidentiality.” Sometimes, whenever possible, certain letters were followed up with a visit from someone assisting him. Most of these visits occurred in the New Jersey and New York areas. One such follow-up was made by Trooper Lewis, in March 1937 after a Princeton man named Charles Noble wrote a letter to Hoffman. Noble worked in real estate and met a man named “W. L. Drummond” a photographer and “examiner of questioned documents.”²⁴ According to Noble, Drummond told him…

…That the Lindbergh child was taken by it’s parent on several occasions to the Rockefeller Medical Centre, New York City for treatment; that it was a helpless cripple, a mere lump; that it had been brought there as recently as two days prior to the kidnapping. That Drummond knew this because his wife was there for observations of a kidney ailment at the same time and that he had personally seen the child there with Colonel Lindbergh.²⁴¹

The change in Lewis’s attitude on this subject was significant, considering where he stood over a year earlier. He dismissed the :

…insofar as the baby being a cripple or invalid is without basis in fact, because our investigations have seen homemade movies of the child playing and walking and all the fantastic stories concerning the child’s health have been disproven. As to whether the child was ever brought to Rockefeller Institute is of no importance, in my opinion. First, the grandchild of a Morrow was not likely to have been taken to a clinic; and second, if he had been it would not have been done in such a manner as to permit the casual observer to see him. Last but not least, if all of this were true, what bearing would it have on the crime of kidnapping? Some theorists might claim that it ed their theory that the

child was destroyed because it was deformed, imbecile, or what not, but it must be ed that to this day that was only a theory.²⁴²

So, it seems it was Lindbergh’s home movies of his son that ended the idea among the governor’s men that there was something “wrong” with the baby. Without the of those he trusted most, this was the beginning of the end for this aspect of Hoffman’s investigation, and once the governor stopped looking into this possibility, who else ever would?

Wayne Jones

One of the books most referenced on this subject is Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame by Wayne Jones. While I must it that I have never read it cover to cover, I have “index surfed” the book. In it, Jones made the claim that the baby was once “a patient at John’s Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.”²⁴³ As the story goes, there was a trip made to Johns Hopkins by “Dick Cass,” who saw a file labeled “Charles Lindbergh Jr.” among their records.²⁴⁴ Unfortunately, despite all of my research, I have found very little to such a claim. For example, one source I located at the NJSP Archives can be found in a World Telegram article. This mentions the rumor that “a group of eminent physicians and surgeons at ‘Johns Hopkins’” had informed Dwight Morrow that “his grandson would be deaf and dumb as long as he lived…”²⁴⁵ Another source I considered came from Lindbergh’s first cousin, “Earl Lindbergh Seal,” who claimed the kidnapping was “an inside job” and was also quoted as saying that he “and his family met the Lindberghs at Baltimore about a year ago.”²⁴ Seal was also quoted in a newspaper article as saying the baby was “a fine, healthy boy.”²⁴⁷ Next, Anne Lindbergh’s cousin, Mrs. Ernest Hendricks, shared her own theories with the media. She believed the kidnapping was an “inside job” and that the child was “still alive.” She added that she was suspicious of Lindbergh and wondered why he wasn’t questioned “more closely.”²⁴⁸

Charles Smolka, a law student living in Wilmington, Delaware, wrote his first letter to Governor Hoffman in January 1936, saying that he sent a telegram to Lloyd Fisher but never received a reply.²⁴

Col. Lindbergh testified, as I understand, that the child was perfect, well, etc., and there has been a persistent report from the beginning in this section that the baby was not as represented and prior to the kidnapping (?) was in a hospital near here. I have in hand and available definite information in this connection which I have every reason to believe can be fully verified.²⁵

The letter becomes even more interesting here:

I have been to the hospital and at present cannot have access to the records but am informed by one in authority there that I can have full information if I am clothed with the authority of the parents or of the Court or of yourself.²⁵¹

Hoffman asked Smolka to forward the information to him in an envelope marked “Personal” and “Confidential,”²⁵² but Smolka said it “would be too difficult to put in writing the information” and requested a personal meeting instead.²⁵³ However, around February 8, while writing this response, someone visited Smolka, introducing himself as a “Mr. Burling” who worked for “Hudson and Hicks.” This man also showed Smolka Governor Hoffman’s official card. This was often done, both legitimately and falsely, as “proof” one was operating under the governor’s authority. Still, Smolka refused to cooperate:

…I accepted his representations but was cautious nevertheless and did not give him detailed information that I possessed and withheld it until I could ascertain that he was a proper person to be informed and one who could obtain for me the necessary authority to the source and secure official dependable and usable verification of the reports which I have gotten personally.”²⁵⁴

I have never found any follow up to this, but upon reading this exchange it reminded me of Jones’ story in his book. Would this it or was the Smolka narrative “borrowed” by Cass or maybe even Jones? When it comes to Cass, this book is the only source for him. In fact, no one I ever met or discussed the case with seemed to know who he was. To get to the bottom of this I ed Lindbergh kidnapping expert David Holwerda. I told Dave that I was going to write about the Wayne Jones/Johns Hopkins material but his immediate reaction was to advise me against it: “There’s no proof of that,” he said.²⁵⁵ If anyone would know who Dick Cass was, it would be him. Unfortunately, his reply to this was that he “never met him but I knew Wayne.” After explaining what I had, along with my suspicions, Dave put that idea to rest, telling me “Wayne loved the subject and was a really nice guy.” “He introduced me to Mrs. Hauptmann at her church in 1982.” But when it came to Dick Cass’s “discovery” Dave said:

Don’t know if that’s true. I’d say he [Cass] existed because Wayne wouldn’t make a character or something like that up. Wayne would believe it, but that doesn’t make it true.²⁵

Dave went on to say that Wayne Jones “looked for everything and liked to believe what someone would tell him… If you met him once he was a friend for life.”²⁵⁷ So, ultimately, all we really have is a story about a man who nobody seems to know or have known, who told Jones he got a glimpse of a name on a folder.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention another possibility. In June 1931, it was announced that both Lindbergh and Anne had been “added to the board of trustees” to the “William Holland Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute of John Hopkins.”²⁵⁸ Could this have been a source for those who saw the Lindberghs at John Hopkins or for a file that existed with the name “Charles Lindbergh, Jr.” on it? Finally, I also think it’s worth mentioning a letter that Dr. Burton Trask wrote to the NJSP in the mid-1980s. Even 50 years after the kidnapping, here we have

someone relaying what he believed was important information. According to Trask, he was “a medical House Officer at the Jersey City Medical Center” at the time of the Lindbergh kidnapping.²⁵ He said he was a member of a “New York City Gentleman’s Club” when another member (who he did not name) asked him if he knew “that the Lindbergh Baby was deaf and dumb.” Whoever this person was made such an impression upon him that he was writing to suggest the perpetrator may have also known the child could not hear, offering him added incentive to commit the crime. He added “I have never mentioned this fact to anyone you are the first that I have spoken to about it.”² Of course, this doesn’t mean the child was deaf, but it does show that a very respectable doctor such as Trask believed he was. After looking at all this information one has to ask themselves if there wasn’t a slightly different explanation: Maybe the child wasn’t “deaf” but simply hard of hearing. As with anything like this, things can be exaggerated, to either small or large degrees. Regardless, would such a condition co-exist with the condition causing his “rickets” or perhaps related to it?

My Theories and Discussion

I’ve always tried to keep my personal theories to myself as much as possible. The last thing I want is to put someone in a position to feel they must agree, which defeats the purpose of everything I write. However, I also receive a fair amount of criticism for not revealing more of what I believe, so I am going to share my ideas concerning some items that I do not think would get the right amount of attention if I did not.

Gravesite

I’ve always believed the body was left at the Mount Rose site after it had been first buried elsewhere. I have several reasons for this. First, the body had originally been in the burlap bag. The bag itself had two different types of soil

on it: One from the surrounding area of the burial site and another from an unknown site. I also believe that since the bag was discovered on the side of the road, it seems impossible it had laid there since March 1, due to the searches investigators made and because police patrolled this road to inspect the phone lines. Also, if the bag had been there all along, I’d expect the weather to at least move it from its almost straight line to the corpse, which laid partially buried about 75 feet away. Finally, the bag contained animal hair and a bone from the corpse. Given this, I find it unlikely that wild animals would first dig up the bag containing a corpse from the burial site, remove the corpse, then drag the mostly empty bag toward the road. What I do find likely is that the bag was thrown or removed from a car on or near the side of that road, in keeping with George Pierson’s . Animals came out of the woods, removed the corpse and dragged it into the woods to be consumed. The reason for the debate over whether or not the child was buried may be ed for by whatever animal(s) were involved burying what was left of the corpse, by creating the small hollowed out depression and covering corpse with a small amount of dirt and leaves.

Many of the investigators did not believe the child’s body had been in the woods where it was discovered on May 12. Among them was Ellis Parker who wrote: “…the baby, if it was the baby, was placed there just before it was found and that it died somewhere else….”² ¹ This is one of the reasons why the Lindbergh Baby claimants exist(ed). Trenton PD Sergeant McDonough believed this corpse was a “planted baby” meant to “divert attention away from the main highway over which liquor runners were ing.”² ²

Over the years, other researchers helped me hone my theories by offering their valuable input. One such person was Horticulturist Liz Pagel who wrote:

Michael’s right. The body was moved. The soil in the burlap sack found by the side of the road does not match soils of High Fields or Mount Rose and then there was the desiccated digit found inside. The body had already begun to decay when it was removed from the sack. Animals could have dragged the body

out of the sack and into the woods.² ³

Other worthy points were made by researcher Pam Bingham, on the Squibb Report:

*A small mat of fibre corresponding to the burlap bag with small rootlets growing through it, and two small pieces of the baby’s underclothes. To me this indicated the bag was with the body at least as long it takes for this disintegration to occur.

*There was no sign of blood in the soil or on the leaves or bag. There were signs of putrefaction, decomposition and maggots in the 3 bags of leaves and soil. This takes time.

*Bones found were embedded in soil, hair was found matted with decomposing leaves. This takes time.

*At some point body and bag were separated – I can only think of two ways, either by animal or a human.

*If it was animals, esp dogs, that may explain the dirt kicked up around the body.² ⁴

Other observations come from researcher Rab Purdy:

*The single bone in the bag. Bones don’t fall off fresh corpses.

*The missing rubber pants, diaper, safety pins and second thumbguard. No animal ate these.

*The amount of hair found in the burlap bag points to the bag being used to transport a decayed corpse, not a fresh one.

*CJ [Cemetery John] was able to negotiate a ransom apparently (and perhaps only apparently) safe in the knowledge that the child would not be discovered at any moment.

*Mt Rose is not a likely escape route for heading back to NYC but it makes more sense as a return site, being removed enough from the centre of activity at Hopewell while still being close to the house.

*If we are to believe that Mt Rose was the route taken on March 1, it means the kidnapper(s) chose to travel towards and through the only town close to Hopewell with a sheriff when multiple other escape routes were available.² ⁵

Here is where the question of “when” should come into the debate. We know that not all the s listed can be true. It’s also possible none are or that there may be others I’ve somehow missed over the years which contradict others. But if one feels there is something to the body being returned, as I and many others do, with this in mind, the question of timing and these memories about what people saw at the burial site could also be incorrect. This could mean they witnessed what they claimed to, but their dates could be wrong. So there are many things to consider when thinking about these recollections and which ones

are creditable. However, for me, since most indicate the body was placed in the woods after the ransom payment, I consider this significant when also considering everything mentioned previously. With this in mind, is the April 2 ransom money delivery significant as it relates to this possibility?

I believe part of the resistance to the idea of the corpse being returned to the burial site is “why?” Why would someone take that unnecessary risk? One might consider the “kidnappers” were delivering on their promise to return the child once they were paid. But the child was dead, so that seems counterintuitive— until one considers who benefits from the discovery of this corpse: Lindbergh. Without a body, the extortion could have continued indefinitely, with the number of chiselers and extortionists growing exponentially. So it seems to me that the child’s body was tossed along the side of the road to put a stop to any future extortion attempts.

Charles Jr.’s Health

Being in law enforcement for as long as I have doesn’t qualify me as anything other than what my education and experience have taught me. Throughout my research, I’ve often reached out via email to experts and those much more knowledgeable than I on certain points or subjects. I am indebted to many people for their help and selflessness.

The FBI summary report claimed the baby was “perfectly normal and healthy in every respect.” However, it also reported he “had a high forehead,” “rather large heard,” and “the only physical deformities being in his toes, which overlapped each other, on both feet.”² At the time this report was written, the FBI invested very little time and virtually no resources looking into the child’s health. Without firsthand knowledge on this subject, the assertion that his toes were deformed is an interesting one. Was this based upon what the NJSP was telling them or could it have been based upon the photos of the corpse?

But what does it mean exactly? The debate about these toe deformities continues to this day. Some have suggested that, like the supposed case of rickets, it was a normal childhood affliction and nothing serious. I look at this knowing exactly how Lindbergh would have felt about it and do not believe any health condition would not have been immediately addressed. But these conditions nevertheless remained. Others hold the position that there might be something more to them. In the course of his own research, Wayne McDaniel showed a closeup photo of the corpse’s toes to a podiatrist. According to that doctor, “those are severely deformed toes.”² ⁷ He also informed me that he consulted several other podiatrists and they all reached similar conclusions. Having seen the photos of the toes on that corpse myself, they do not look “normal.” I also wonder how bad they might have been originally before any type of treatment took place. And if they were the same by the time of his death, then whatever that treatment was had not worked. Since we know the child stood up and walked in the film footage, could this have been a condition that worsened over time? Or could there be a different explanation?

Since it is indisputable that animals scavenged and consumed some of the corpse, I researched what types of animals might have done this. One of the usual suspects is the fox. Both the Red and Gray Fox are quite common in the Hopewell area, today and at the time of the kidnapping. They will consume roadkill, small livestock, and have been known to feed on dead deer hunters leave in fields overnight. Here is also an interesting bit of information to consider:

The toes of the victims are usually drawn up in a curled position because of tendons pulled when the fox strips meat from the leg bone. Smaller bones are likely to be sheared off. The remains are often partially buried.² ⁸

Here again, while I am not an expert on this subject, it seems worthy of consideration. If a fox was responsible, could it be possible the condition of the toes was worsened by its involvement? Or could the condition of this corpse

actually be proof of just the opposite, or even proof a fox was not the culprit? The possibilities are maddening. So, while it’s something to consider, there’s no way for me to say with any degree of certainty outside of what we already know as a matter of fact.

Another point of interest is that the corpse having been partially devoured by animals, had several body parts missing. I grew up in Hunterdon County and saw my share of deer carcasses, and cannot see why a human body would be treated any differently by scavengers. Yet this corpse’s heart and liver were both untouched. I wanted to know why.

Many who saw this corpse, including police, believed the body had been embalmed. In fact, it had been announced in the papers that the Hauptmann defense, led at the time by James Fawcett, intended to call Dr. Van Ingen to testify to this.² This was a popular suggestion that seemed to get lost over time, which is why I tried to bring it back to light in V1.²⁷ As I explained, there were several reasons for this. One was because both the liver and heart remained.²⁷¹ Dr. Alexander O. Gettler, head toxicologist for New York City, went public with his criticism over the lack of “a trained pathologist and toxicologist” concerning the autopsy.²⁷² Even after Hauptmann’s conviction, Dr. Gettler asserted that the “exact cause” as well as the “exact time” of death was “still in dispute.”²⁷³ Dr. Ignatz Theodor Griebl wrote:

Every medical man in this country knows that there was no toxicological examination performed on the dead body of the child found. The performance of an autopsy alone is by no means sufficient in a Medical Examiners case of homicide, suicide, or fatal accident. The toxicological tests of all organs removed are the deciding factors from a Medical Examiners view point.²⁷⁴

During Governor Hoffman’s later investigation, it was recommended that “Dr. Martland” of “Newark” be consulted about “just what a toxicological examination would have disclosed,” such as “examination” of “liver and kidneys

as to istration of drugs….”²⁷⁵

Robert Hicks wrote:

If the body had been embalmed a careful examination of the heart by a competent pathologist would no doubt have revealed evidences of embalming fluid.²⁷

The consideration that the corpse had been embalmed seems at odds with the fact that animals consumed much of the body. I reached out to several people who might know why scavengers would consume everything but the heart and liver. Unfortunately, no one seemed to know, or felt comfortable giving me an answer. However, there was part of one reply that caught my attention. It came from forensic entomologist Dr. Gail S. Anderson who wrote: “The liver is full of toxins as it detoxifies the body, but that never seems to stop carnivores such as dogs.”²⁷⁷ I then recalled the child’s unclosed fontanel. Could there be a specific disease which would affect both the liver and heart, making them unpalatable to animals? Or did this have to do with toxins, medications, or drugs that were present in these organs, which would have had the same effect? The answer may be out there, among those professionals with relevant experience. Regardless, I am certain there was a reason why scavengers were selective in what they consumed on the corpse of Charles Lindbergh, Jr..

It seems to me the answer to these questions can only be reached by involving a team of worthy professionals. Even without specific pieces of information, there are always certain possibilities that can be narrowed down. We would then have to honestly ask ourselves how a eugenicist like Charles Lindbergh might perceive symptoms and physical abnormalities like those described, then apply that to his well-documented behavior and beliefs. While none of this would prove his involvement in the kidnapping, I believe ignoring that possibility is reckless in the face of all evidence I’ve presented here and in my two previous volumes.

3 Schippell’s Shack

As stated, Charles Schippell was suspected by many of involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping. But were these suspicions valid? Even gangster Waxey Gordon offered his view. Weeks prior to the discovery of the child’s corpse, reporter George Clarke spoke to him about the crime:

Then Waxey told me “George, you don’t have to worry about that baby. That baby is dead. He was kidnapped by a local maniac who wanted revenge on the Lindberghs. The gangs had nothing to do with it.”²⁷⁸

When the Lindbergh child’s body was discovered, Gordon’s position appeared to have been validated. But was Schippell a “maniac?” Some people did think him “crazy” but most felt he was just odd. Regardless, once the corpse was found in the woods approximately a quarter-mile from Schippell’s shack, Clarke believed Gordon was right. The NJSP interviewed a woman named Bertha Burke, who owned a store and service station on the Hopewell-Princeton Road. Burke told police that she immediately notified Hopewell Police Chief Wolfe that she suspected Schippell after the child disappeared. She had several reasons. One was that her father, Frank Benjamin, had been to the shack on numerous occasions and had seen ladders. Another reason was that Schippell was “very eccentric” and “was laboring under the impression that Colonel Lindbergh intended to kidnap his eleven year old daughter.”²⁷ When questioned by police, Schippell denied having said such a thing. He did it, however, to saying he would like to see Lindbergh’s house after it was completed.²⁸

William L. Fenton

On March 11, 1932, the NJSP received a letter addressed to Lindbergh from P. J. Ferris of Ringoes, New Jersey. While stressing confidentiality, Ferris described a conversation he had with William Fenton, who lived on Rocktown Road. Fenton told Ferris “that sometime within the year” he “would bet that the Lindbergh child would be kidnapped.”²⁸¹ Police searched Fenton’s home. He was interviewed and found to be in very poor health, suffering from tuberculosis.²⁸² On May 17, 1932, Schippell was picked up at his New York City residence at 236 E. 88th Street and brought to Hopewell for questioning. Police learned Fenton was Schippell’s brother-in-law and that, in July 1923, the men had tly purchased and lived on a 20-acre farm in Rocktown. But Schippell claimed Fenton “gypped” him and he left that December, never to speak to him again.²⁸³ It wasn’t until about a year after this interview that Captain Lamb ordered Bornmann to conduct a secret investigation into Fenton. Bornmann proceeded to Mount Airy where he interviewed a man by the name of A. H. Runkle and learned that Fenton was now in the “advance stage of tuberculosis.”²⁸⁴ Bornmann then drove to the general store at Rocktown and spoke with Ludwig Klee, who informed him that Fenton had been dead for over two months.²⁸⁵

Schippell Interview

During his interview, Schippell provided a great deal of information, including the fact that the 40-acre farm in Mount Rose was really owned by “Mrs. Kleinmann,” his mother-in-law.

Q. Do you visit this place very often?

A. Lately, no. Through the summer, yes. I was there all last summer, up until Nov. 20th.

Q. How many times have you been there since Nov. 20th?

A. Once after that date and I left before Christmas. First week in Jan. when I brought out some lumber, window sashes. I was there again around March 22nd. My wife and baby came out on the 26th. My wife stayed until Tuesday, Mar. 29th and I went home on Saturday, April 2nd and have not been there since.²⁸

Asked where he was on March 1, 1932, Schippell explained that he was with his mother-in-law, wife, and daughter at 236 East 88th St. in New York, “home in bed.” He also claimed that on March 8 he went to the Veteran’s Hospital and was seen by a Dr. Epstein.²⁸⁷ During this interview it was also revealed that in “July, August, & September” 1931, Schippell rented his farm to “Charles Maran,” and Maran’s step-father “Joe” but had neither seen nor heard from them since.²⁸⁸ Ten days later, reporters Edmund DeLong and George Daws arrived at the Highfields “gate” wanting to know if Schippell had been cleared.²⁸ They felt he was “more or less crazy” but wanted to know for sure before spending time chasing down a “few clues” relating to Schippell. Police would not give them any information and referred them to Colonel Schwarzkopf.² In mid-October the NJSP showed Condon a picture of Schippell. Condon studied the picture but was “unable to identify the photograph.”² ¹ (It should be recalled here the cases of mistaken identity previously mentioned due to Schippell’s resemblance to Hauptmann). Authorities’ next trip Schippell’s shack led to an accidental encounter with Schippell, who was extremely angry to see them, demanding to know who had broken into his place and caused all the damage. He said he reported this to the Hopewell Police but was “threatened with arrest.” Police claimed to be searching “for game violators” and apparently denied any responsibility.² ²

Joe Cerardi (Gerardi) aka Frank Jerome

On September 22, 1932, Lieutenant Keaten and Special Agent Frank Wilson proceeded to East 88th Street and interviewed Mrs. Schippell concerning the location of “Charles Marne” [sic]. Mrs. Schippell claimed that “they had never been able to find Charles” and were looking for him because of items that went missing from the Schippell farm after he left.² ³ About a week later, Schippell was re-interviewed about Cerardi and Maran. He informed police that “Joe” was a “prize-fighter,” and that Maran’s “sick mother” was “well educated” and “speaks 3 languages.” The three rented his place from “July 20th, to October 20th.”² ⁴

Lieutenant Keaten and Agent Wilson found that Maran had worked as a clerk and process server for the Office of the Commissioner of Deeds in New York City. They also interviewed “Mr. Deutsch,” a realtor who rented out Schippell’s shack to the men. Deutsch verified they were there from July to October and that Maran said he wanted the place because his “mother was in ill health.”² ⁵ Maran paid $60.00 cash advance for three months’ rent. Deutsch asked Keaten if he was investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping, but Keaten told him he was not.

He further stated that Maran had told Mr. Schippell that he did not want him on the property after he (Maran) had rented it because his mother was of a nervous temperament and she did not want any strangers at the place. He also told Deutsch and Schippell that his step-father whose first name was Joe was taking care of things at Hopewell, N.J. Deutsch informed us that from his observation of Maran he thought that he would be likely to be involved in a crime of some sort.²

As the investigation progressed, Agent Wilson heard from Treasury agents that a man referred to as “Joe the Wop” had “formerly lived at 3000 or 3001 E. Tremont Avenue.” Wilson believed this “in all probability” was Joe Cerardi.² ⁷ However, that lead proved fruitless once agents visited the Bronx Post Office which covered the E. Tremont address. The superintendent told them none of the letter carriers knew anything about Joe Cerardi, even going so far as to ask around, but being unable to locate anyone who had known a man by that

name.² ⁸

In November, police were able to ascertain that Cerardi was receiving mail to a Teaneck Road address at a Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, under several different names. They soon located a former neighbor, Mrs. E. Ventor, and interviewed her under the guise of being “Government men working on a health case.” She gave the following information:

That a man by the name of Joe Cerardi, an Italian, lived at this particular address with his wife who is Jewish, and a step-son, that the step-son works in New York and that Mr. Cerardi stays at his residence all the time except when he makes trips to New York City for two or three days at a time. She stated that she believed that Mrs. Cerardi was demented and at time one could hear her scream in Jewish. She stated that this woman was apparently kept in a room in this house and the windows were wired with chicken wire and that she was practically confined there all the time except when her husband Joe on very rare occasions took her out in the yard for a short walk. She further stated that she believed that Joe was either a dope fiend or demented. Mrs. Ventor very rarely seen the son while she was living at 575 Old Teaneck Road. That it was impossible to find anything out about these people. That Cerardi and Maran formerly come from the Bronx, N.Y…²

The investigators then visited a neighbor, Mrs. George Crippen. She told the men that Maran was a “nervous” type who was a process server in New York City, his mother was apparently “insane,” and that Cerardi was either a “drug addict” or “demented.”³ She also believed there was “something very wrong with these people,” and that she…

…herself was afraid that Joe Cerardi might become treacherous if he found out that she was giving any information to anyone about him.³ ¹

From November 16 to November 22, Lieutenant Keaten and the Treasury agents staked out Joe Cerardi’s place with men inside and outside the Crippen home. The agents used Kodak cameras to photograph both Cerardi and Maran, later obtaining a “moving picture” camera for that purpose. Cerardi visited Mr. Crippen several times, and police were listening to their conversations while concealed in a back room. Two things stood out: Maran “had something on his mind and was worrying,” and Cerardi wanted to return to Maine so he could “live in seclusion” because he needed “privacy due to the condition of the health of his wife.”³ ² Eventually, police returned and were able to get more surveillance photos of Cerardi and Maran. On December 29, 1932, the motion pictures of Maran and Cerardi were brought to the Morrow estate in Englewood and shown to Lindbergh to see if either was the man he observed near “St. Raymond Cemetery on the night of April 2nd, 1932 when Dr. Condon paid the $50,000 to “John the Kidnaper.””

Colonel Lindbergh at this time stated that the walk and the running of Cerardi in these pictures were the closest he had seen since the night of April 2nd, 1932. He was unable to identify Charles Maran, but he said, at some time, would like to see Enrico Cerardi when this subject is picked up for interrogation by these investigators.³ ³

About a week later, police checked back in with the Crippens to see if there had been any developments. They learned that Maran and Cerardi had been in a fight, causing Maran to borrow a ladder to gain access into the home, but they had since reconciled. Also mentioned was that Cerardi owed a utility bill of $69.00 and had paid $7.00 towards it.³ ⁴ Crippen added that neighbors urged Cerardi to apply for “Municipal Aid” but he refused because he believed there could be “an investigation of the conditions existing in his home, and he did not want anyone coming around there.”³ ⁵ The following month, police returned to speak with the Crippens. They said that Mrs. Sophie Cerardi’s family was demanding that she be sent to a hospital but that her husband had refused “to have anyone interfere with his plans.”³ They also said Maran told them…

Enrico Cerardi is a crook and would do anything to make a living without working, stating that Cerardi carried an onion in his pocket and would rub his eyes with it and then approach people on the Street, begging for help so that it would appear that he was crying.³ ⁷

They further advised that Sophie Cerardi’s brother, Morris Rosenthal, had been by to see them and told them that Cerardi had lied about being in the military and had actually been in “jail.”³ ⁸ Referring to a recent conversation Mr. Crippen had with Maran, he was told that Cerardi had “a plan to make some money” and it would require him to be away from home for “about three or four days.”³ During another interview with Mrs. Crippen, police learned that Cerardi had been arrested on Easter Sunday for “shining shoes,” but that he gave them the name “Joe Jerome” and was let go due to his claim he was a “Gassed World War Veteran.”³¹ About two weeks later, on May 10, Mrs. Crippen informed police that Cerardi was “now employed” but became “very evasive as to the identity of his employer” or the type of work he was doing. She also said he was “very happy” because he claimed his “father’s estate” was settled in Italy and that he was being forwarded “$4400 in American Money” through the “Bank of Naples located at 149th Street and Fourth Avenue.”³¹¹ (Although it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the report, one cannot help but feel the NJSP saw a possible connection here with the recent J. J. Faulkner deposit). By July, Mrs. Crippen informed police that Cerardi claimed he never received the money expected but that she did notice he had purchased a new hat and suit of clothes and also seemed to have enough money to get by.³¹² Finally, on August 10, 1933, Lieutenant Keaten ordered Cerardi brought in for questioning. Both Keaten and Frank Wilson grilled him about his activities “in and around Hopewell where he formerly lived in 1931.”³¹³ Keaten was frustrated by Cerardi’s supposed inability to “understand English very well,” and believed him to be “of such a low mentality” that it took “about three hours to get anything out of him.”³¹⁴ Cerardi claimed that he left Hopewell in October 1931 and went back to New York but “to what place he does not know,” and referred the men to Maran, who he said could explain everything. Keaten was so unimpressed that he wrote Cerardi “would not have the brains to be mixed up in anything like the Lindbergh Case”:

In so far as this subject is concerned I do not believe that any more time or effort

should be wasted in investigating anything in reference to him, but we will, however, check out the Maran end of this investigation at which time, if nothing new develops, would recommend that this investigation be closed.³¹⁵

What happened to the Joe Cerardi who Mrs. Crippen was so afraid of, described as either a “drug addict” or “demented” and scamming people with an onion in his pocket? Did he just fool police by pretending to be stupid – or had everyone else simply been exaggerating?

Charles Maran was ed, and arrangements were made to interview him. Meanwhile, his handwriting was forwarded to Lieutenant Snook for comparison and was determined to have “no connection with the handwriting in the Lindbergh ransom notes.”³¹ Maran was finally interviewed at NJSP Alpine station. He told authorities that when he and his mother lived on Sherman Avenue in New York, she had married Enrico Cerardi. They moved to a Bronx apartment on Washington Avenue and, a couple weeks later, both Cerardi and his mother moved in with him in a rental on Walton Avenue, also in the Bronx. Cerardi’s “place of business” was at 1243 Union Avenue and they both eventually moved to the back of the store. Maran later took a room with the Henderson family on Rogers Place in the Bronx and, while there, Cerardi informed him that he was having “difficulty” taking care of both the store and his wife, so he sold the business and the whole family rented a farm in Liberty, Maine. However, the farm was so “run down” they only stayed “3 weeks” before moving back to the same building on Union Avenue, on the second floor.³¹⁷ About two months later, Cerardi still believed they should “be on a farm” so they ed a real estate man named “Deutsch” and rented the Schippell place sometime in July 1931. Schippell and Maran assisted Cerardi and his mother’s move to Hopewell on July 20, but both returned to New York City that same night. According to Maran, after three months, Cerardi moved from Hopewell to Westchester Avenue in the Bronx. Because Mrs. Cerardi was “too noisy,” they moved again to Third Avenue. From there they moved to the Ridgefield Park address. Eventually, Maran left his apartment on East 152nd Street and moved in with them, living there up to the day of this statement.³¹⁸

When asked about his whereabouts on March 1, 1932, Maran believed he was working and at home, either at the 152nd Street or Ridgefield Park address. He claimed he worked as a “process server,” that he grew up in the Bronx and attended both P.S. 40 and P.S. 9, later attending Townsend-Harris High School. He was asked about Condon but denied knowing him. When asked about Hopewell, Maran claimed he only visited there during weekends and holidays for the short time his mother and Cerardi were there, and that no one ever asked him about the “Lindberghs.”³¹ During a Q&A session, Maran suddenly ed:

At one time I served some papers for Col. Breckinridge on some property in which he was interested on East 53rd St., New York City. I also know Mr. James Phelan, Jr., 25 Broadway who was also interested in the same proposition.³²

The Arrest

On January 10, 1934, the police got a call from Mrs. Crippen, who informed them that Cerardi had been arrested the night before; reporters were taking pictures in front of her home, and there was a lot of talk about the Lindbergh case.³²¹ Sergeant Zapolsky rushed to the scene, where Mrs. Crippen told him that the Ridgefield chief of police, Fred E. Larson, along with several other law enforcement officers, had removed Sophie Cerardi to Oradell Hospital, due to the complaint made by her sister, Loretta Regenstraus. Both Cerardi and “his housekeeper” were arrested and taken to Bergen County Jail.³²² According to the report, police were interested in learning more about “an insurance policy” Cerardi “was alleged to have taken out on his wife.” Mrs. Crippen told Zapolsky that several reporters attempted to interview her, specifically asking questions about Cerardi being involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Sergeant Zapolsky then proceeded to the Ridgefield Park police station to interview Chief Larson. Larson told him that, during questioning, Cerardi

himself itted that he had been arrested by the NJSP in connection with the Lindbergh kidnapping because he had lived near where the baby’s body was found. Cerardi also told Larson that he had about one thousand dollars in a vault in New York. A county detective named Gallion “thought that this may be the Lindbergh Ransom” and said he would get the state prosecutor to obtain a court order to gain access. Larson believed reporters overhead this remark which “stirred up all the newspapers.”³²³ The New York Times wrote an article about this arrest that same day, which mentioned that Cerardi was a “former boxer” who was “questioned about the Lindbergh kidnapping.”³²⁴ It also went on to say that Mrs. Cerardi was found in a locked room without clothes, “emaciated,” and weighing only “fifty pounds.”³²⁵

Absolved

In early March, Cerardi was released after a grand jury refused to indict him. Both he and the “nurse,” Mary Williamson, were cleared of any blame.³²

Larry Rue

Ironically, it was on this very same date that “Number 19” of the Larry Rue series of articles on the Lindbergh kidnapping was published. This particular story focused on Cerardi and the many “coincidences” surrounding him.³²⁷ The article quoted Morris Rosenthal as saying that both Maran and Cerardi had threatened to kill him and his sister if they called the police about Sophie Cerardi’s condition. This article also claimed that when police raided the home, they were met by the “housekeeper” “Miss Mary Griffin” who lied by telling them she was there alone.³²⁸ Police then freed Sophie, who was locked in a small dark room, babbling incoherently in three different languages, “huddled naked” on a “soiled mattress” weighing only “53 pounds.” Cerardi’s explanations did not make sense, and it was discovered that her life was insured for “ten thousand dollars.”³²

That was assumed to be the reason for her captivity. She was insane, and if she wasted away and died from seemingly natural causes, Cerardi would benefit by ten thousand dollars. “A tough guy,” the police called him.³³

Rue’s article mentioned another theory. He considered a line in one of the ransom notes that stated the crime had been planned for “a year already.”³³¹ He determined the pattern, timing, and location of Cerardi’s movements, considering he may have been stalking the Lindbergh child. Rue claimed Cerardi first lived at Englewood, then moved to North Haven, Maine, during the time the baby was at the Morrow summer home, then later moved to Hopewell, pointing out that his last address at Ridgefield Park was very close to Englewood.³³² Rue believed that Cerardi knew Hopewell and the Bronx, and lived nearly adjacent to where the child’s body was discovered. These facts led Rue to believe that Cerardi had all the knowledge needed to commit the crime. Rue even attempted to link Condon to Cerardi by claiming he boxed “about” the same time Condon associate and former boxer Al Reich “was in his prime.”³³³

This article captured the public’s attention and many letters concerning it were written to those connected to the case. One letter to John Condon came from Clara Souther, who had spent summers in North Haven. She expressed disbelief that people like the Cerardis would move to “such an exclusive place.”³³⁴ Mrs. Souther suggested the only possible reason for such a move would be an attempt “to make s with the Morrow household.”³³⁵ Prior this article’s publication was Agent Frank Wilson’s November 1933 summary of the case, in which he wrote:

We found them living at Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and that they had lived there since about December, 1931. Ridgefield Park is about five miles from the Morrow home in Englewood where the Lindbergh family were living when Maran, his mother and Joe took up their residence at Ridgefield Park. It was also ascertained that the three moved to a small farm near Rockland, Maine, in the early summer of 1931. This farm was not far from North Haven, Maine,

where the Lindbergh baby spent the summer.³³

Also included in this report was the fact that handwriting from both Maran and Cerardi had been submitted to the Bureau of Standards and that pictures of both were submitted to Dr. Condon. Wilson concluded: “Nothing was developed to establish their connection with the kidnapping.”³³⁷ The FBI summary report also mentions Cerardi, but the two main sources of information on this subject were Agent Wilson’s report, and those in various newspapers, some of what they noted echoing both Rue and Wilson:

It is noted that Gerardi [sic] and his associates lived near the Lindberghs on three different occasions, and in three different localities. Apparently they have no gainful employment, and, further, they lived at one time close to the spot where the baby’s body was found. Also, Gerardi and Maran apparently are natives of the Bronx, New York City, where the ransom negotiations in the Lindbergh case were carried on.³³⁸

Evaluation

Of course, once referring to the actual investigations, we see that, according to Maran, they moved to “Liberty,” Maine. This is quite a distance from Rockland and further still from North Haven. Next, if the timeline Maran gave to police was accurate, the three weeks they were in Liberty was about two months prior to the Lindbergh baby being in North Haven.³³ In fact, by the time the child was brought there, Cerardi and Sophie were already living in Hopewell. Finally, at the time of the kidnapping, they were no longer in Hopewell. Still, the pattern is suspicious even if not as suspicious as it would be if the picture was as exactly painted by Rue. Apparently, the FBI thought so as well. When reviewing Harold Woolf’s manuscript, Special Agent Seykora noted the information about Cerardi, writing:

Agent informed Mr. Karpf and Mr. Stanton that the “3X” murders and the attempted extortion of Constance Morrow, as well as the possible implication of J. Gerardi (who is one of the suspects mentioned by Woolf) had previously been, and still are, the subject of inquiry by all of the interested investigative agencies in connection with the Lindbergh case…³⁴

Unfortunately, there is very little mention of this aspect of the case from then on. Special Agent Genau investigated a claim that Cerardi was wanted on a kidnapping charge in Hackensack, but this turned out to be false.³⁴¹ Later, during Governor Hoffman’s investigation, Colonel Kimberling ordered that Cerardi’s fingerprints be compared with those obtained from the kidnap ladder. The findings were that “none” compared with those latent prints.³⁴²

Charles Maran and Joe Cerardi. (NJSP)

4 J. J. Faulkner

Governor Hoffman wrote:

I have personal knowledge that one newspaper in New York City spent thousands of dollars in an endeavor to locate the persons who made the deposit on the final day for the exchange of gold certificates.³⁴³

A Closer Look at Schindler’s Car

One of the first clues connected to the J. J. Faulkner aspect of the Lindbergh kidnapping arose before that name ever appeared on the famous deposit slip. It came in the form of a 1926 tan Buick Brougham, plate no., “ON 4904 N.J,” stolen from the front of the Pines Hotel in Lakewood, New Jersey, on January 28, 1932, between 9PM and 11PM.³⁴⁴ The car belonged to the hotel’s owner, Benjamin Schindler, who reported it stolen to the Lakewood police. Lakewood then requested the car be added to the “stolen vehicle” wire, which went to all police departments with teletypes. The first sign of the car came on March 2, when it was reportedly “seen in Somerville NJ this date.”³⁴⁵ On the same day, “this car” came to the attention of the NYPD via a complaint by “Mrs. A. Bleisch,” who said it had been abandoned in front of “515 West 149th Street.”³⁴ Patrolmen Doyle and Rossiter from the nearby Amsterdam Avenue precinct responded and, “to the best of their knowledge,” examined the Buick Brougham on March 2 at about 5PM.³⁴⁷

They both stated that the car contained a new blanket folded on the back of the

front seat and an old blanket laying on the floor of the car in front to the right of the driver’s seat. Underneath this blanket at the time was a quart milk bottle and about four feet of small rubber tubing, under the rear seat was an old pair of pants, a razor set, several maps and in a side pocket a bottle of polish. Both of these officers state that the bottle had milk stains on the outside but that the bottle itself smelled as if it had contained some sort of oil. They also found a grape fruit knife in the car which they turned over to Detective Harrison of their precinct and which at this date gave to us. They stated they returned to the precinct and reported to their superior officer but no further action was taken, and that the next day Detectives Genet and Oak of the Main Headquarters Auto Squad appeared and claimed the car.³⁴⁸

The car was found without its New Jersey plates but replaced with New York plates “6-V-2456.” Several of the earliest sources, including a report written by Corporal Ritchie, claimed that Detective Genet found the plate ed to “Ann S. Rohm, residence 764 Warburton Ave., Yonkers, N. Y.,” who, once interviewed, said her plate “had been stolen from her auto about a month ago but that she had not made any report of this theft to police.”³⁴ Genet had the car’s serial number on the stolen car sheet and discovered that it was listed on “N.Y. Alarm 3135” as a stolen car originating in Lakewood. The car was officially seized by Detective Genet at 12:30PM on March 4.³⁵ The March 4 date was also ed by Detective Genet, who told both Sergeant Haussling and Detective Dunn that Patrolmen Rossiter and Doyle had originally “looked over the car” on “March 3rd.”³⁵¹ Genet’s investigation wrapped up on March 9, and Lakewood police were informed of the recovery of Schindler’s car, at which time the stolen car alert was cancelled.³⁵² According to Corporal Ritchie’s report, the following items were recovered in this car, which Schindler told police were not his and had not been in the car at the time it was stolen:

• Full Size Grey Blanket. • Brown Plaid Blanket with Fringe. • A Pair of Worn & Patched Khaki Colored Tros. • Map of Western New Jersey/Eastern Pennsylvania.

• Gem Safety Razor. • A Small Package of Tulip Paper Cups. • Bottle of Grade “A” Milk. • Colored Auto Polish. • Three Whiskey Bottle Caps. • Match Box.³⁵³

According Detective Patterson’s report, a February 29, 1932 copy of The New York Daily Mirror was also located in the car. This report also noted that the grey blanket was “expensive looking” while the other blanket was “old” and “soiled.” Patterson also referred to the drinking cups a “Lily” brand.³⁵⁴

Police interviewed Schindler’s “bell boy,” Bernard Bateman. While they found he had a previous arrest, upon completion of their interview they felt certain he had no connection with the theft of the automobile. They next interviewed the Lakewood Buick dealer, A. W. Van Schoick, who sold Schindler the car and told them he purchased the car from Harry Matthews. Once Matthews was tracked down at his home in Harmony, New Jersey, he told police that the khaki tros were his and that he kept them in the car so he wouldn’t soil his clothing should he ever need to change a tire. He also claimed to have owned road maps but couldn’t “just what type they were.” He told police he had “no knowledge of the blankets.”³⁵⁵ Sergeant Haussling and Detective Dunn, along with Detective Oak, went to 515 West 149th Street to interview Mrs. Bleisch. She stated that she never saw the driver of the car who abandoned it on “March 2nd.” However, she did claim that both she and her neighbor, Mrs. Stephens, went out to investigate the car. While doing so the women “saw the blanket folded and hanging over the rear seat and also the quart milk bottle under the old blanket on the floor” with a “small piece of red rubber hose” near the bottle.³⁵ The men next interviewed Dorothy Stephens who lived in the front room of a second-floor apartment.

She had just turned on the radio for the 11 A. M. program and hearing a car pull up in front of the house sounding like an old Buick, because she formally owned one, her curiosity was aroused and looking out of the window saw a man get out of the drivers seat walk around the front of the car to the opposite side and appear to lock the door. She thought it strange as the window of the door was left open. She watched the man walk down 149th Street in the direction of Amsterdam Avenue and when about five hundred yards or so from the car turned around and looked at it. She described the man as being about 5' 7” or 9,” clean shaven, about 30 years old, slender build, dark complexion, well dressed with dark clothes and overcoat and light grey hat. She could not venture a statement as to the man’s nationality.³⁵⁷

Police wrote that both women had stated the “read lights in the back of the car were lit,” and that “the shades” were “drawn down completely around the rear.” Mrs. Stephens was brought to the Police Headquarters “where she viewed a gallery but without success.” This report also mentioned that Captain Lamb had a “suspect” for the car theft: “Frank Costa.” Inspector Lyons ordered his Identification Bureau to “assemble all Frank Costas or similar named prisoner pictures for Stephens to view” but this order was never followed. Haussling and Dunn also visited the “147th Street garage” listed on the match book found in the car. They interviewed the owner, Max Singer, who checked his records and found nothing about the car. However, he advised that every morning he would send out “a boy” to walk a five-block radius from the garage and throw the matches “into parked cars” to his garage and attract business. Police now had successfully eliminated the tros and matchbook as evidence.

The maps were investigated by Corporal Ritchie and Detective Carr. Like the matchbook, one of the maps d a garage, this one located at 4 Barnes Street in Trenton. Police interviewed the assistant manager, Paul Wagner, of Weinmann’s Garage and Works. After reviewing the storage list between the dates of February 15 to March 2, it was determined that Schindler’s Buick had never been there, Wagner stating that he had “never seen this car.” His garage had the maps made up in 1928, but stopped distributing them approximately two

years earlier, starting again on “November 1, 1931.” Wagner said that maps “were given out to hotels, road stands, stores, etc., and that it would be possible for a motorist to secure one of these maps in any place other than his garage.” He also stated that “cars stopping for gasoline” would sometimes ask for a map and would be given one.³⁵⁸

The Rohm (Rehm) Plates

The next step was to locate and interview Anne S. Rohm, the owner of the stolen Yonkers plate now on Schindler’s car.³⁵ Dunn and Haussling visited the Yonkers Police Department and learned from Captain Ford that the plates had been reported stolen at “about 10 A. M. January 30, 1932” and that “teletype alarm #238” was issued on those plates “at 10:23 P.M.” on the same date.³ It was reported the plates had been “stolen from a vacant lot next to the owners home, 764 Warbarton Avenue….” Accompanied by Yonkers Detectives Williamson and Shea, Dunn and Haussling drove to a Warbarton Avenue garage and interviewed Carl Redgate. He claimed Mr. Rohm did not “mingle with neighbors” but that he did recall seeing him drive off “a month or two previous,” noticing the car was “without license plates.”³ ¹ Police then went to the apartment building and spoke with a Mr. Spangenberger, the superintendent. He claimed the Rohms had come from Massachusetts, moving into the building on the third floor about eight months prior. He knew that Mrs. Rohm worked but did not know where. He also believed Rohm was a “car salesman” and was “sort of queer” because he did not associate with the other tenants. It wasn’t until months later, that summer, that Haussling and Detectives Williamson and DeGaetano made actual with Jack Rohm. He was interviewed at the Sax and Rosenfield used car lot in Yonkers, where he was employed as a salesman. He “corroborated” the previous and told police “he had no suspects nor had he at any time seen anyone acting suspiciously near the lot where he usually parked his car.”³ ² Police examined his driver’s license and concluded there was “no similarity in his handwriting with that of the ransom notes.” Detective Williamson also advised that he “believes Rehm [sic] to be of good character and knows nothing detrimental about him.”³ ³ It was at this point, despite their suspicions that the car in question might have been involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping, that the NJSP believed they had exhausted their leads and the stolen

Schindler Buick investigation came to an end.

The Deposit Slip

This story is well known: After a large amount of ransom money was discovered at the Federal Reserve, several deposit slips were scrutinized to determine who made the exchange. The slip listing “J. J. Faulkner 537 W 149” as a depositor of “2980” in “Gold Cert” was determined to be the slip used to turn in that amount in Lindbergh ransom money on May 1, 1933. This conclusion was made despite the fact the handwriting on the slip did not match the handwriting in the ransom notes.³ ⁴ As a result, the Schindler investigation was reignited:

On January 28, 1932, a Buick Brougham car was stolen from in front of the Hotel Pines in Lakewood, N.J. and was found abandoned a few doors on West 149th Street from the address given by the above subject [J. J. Faulkner] at the Federal Reserve Bank when he exchanged the Gold Certificates. It is thought that this car may have been used in the kidnapping and stolen by the above subject.³ ⁵

Police ed the Pines Hotel’s former manager, Samuel Schindler, to have the hotel checked for the name “Faulkner.” A review of the hotel’s records failed to find anyone who ed under that name. Handwriting in the was also checked, but none was found “similar to that of J. J. Faulkner’s.”³ Colonel Schwarzkopf also wrote a letter to the manufacturer of the cups found in the car, to learn more about the shipments which concerned the roll of “tulip drinking cups” with the serial “number 9056” stamped on the package.³ ⁷ There was a very prompt reply which explained the company kept no record of shipments of specific cartons based on the numbers stamped on the outside.³ ⁸

Another investigation was made concerning the Somerville sighting of Schindler’s car. Police learned Schindler, who was traveling with his son and cousin on Main Street, “noticed an automobile which resembled their stolen Buick.” They followed the car but noticed some differences with the bumpers and trunk, and stopped tailing the car. However, on the way back to Lakewood, they “reasoned” the changes may have been a method of “disguise” and called it in. After the car had been recovered, Schindler was convinced the car in Somerville was not his.³ There was also a major investigation of all parking garages possibly used to repair or store Schindler’s Buick during the time it had been stolen. An army of NJSP troopers, including Ralph Dowgin, F.W. Suchomel, John Speed, W. H. Bull, D. R. Dore, P. J. Smith, W. K. Heckmann, M. B. McConnell, and John Callahan, made exhaustive and meticulous searches. However, the few leads generated all turned out to be dead ends. Detective DeGaetano was also tasked with locating the Buick, which had been sold, then make a record of any tires and serial numbers on certain parts. He learned only that the battery had been replaced since its sale, and nothing from his investigation assisted police.³⁷

Police also checked another stolen car to see if its theft was related to Schindler’s. Abraham Hafif of Lakewood had been visiting New York City on February 27, 1932. He had parked his Buick Sedan on the street that night at 10:00 PM, finding it stolen the next morning at 10:00 AM. The theft was immediately reported and sent out via “Alarm #6457” and investigated by the 62nd Precinct. The car was recovered by Patrolman Kramer of the 6th Precinct on March 2, 1933 at 2:30 AM on “148 West 14th St.”³⁷¹ Despite their initial interest, I have never found any follow-up to this investigation.

Revisiting Rohm

In April 1934, police revisited Rohm concerning the stolen plates. Detective Williamson informed Sergeant Haussling that Rohm still worked at the same auto dealership, but he also said that…

…he has noticed Rehm [sic] recently associating with one Dudley R. Valentine, Yonkers, who is more or less of notorious character and has been arrested for Grand Larceny and Rape and is suspected of numerous breaking and entering jobs.³⁷²

Of course, this development interested Haussling, and though Williamson was currently assigned to another “important investigation,” he promised to get back to Haussling about “Rehm’s [sic] present activities.” No was ever made. Haussling reached out again in May, still with no results.³⁷³ Unfortunately, I could not find anything further on this and if it was never followed up, I am at a loss to understand why.

Investigation of the Two Blankets

The blankets discovered in Schindler’s car were given to the NJSP on March 14, 1932. Patrolmen Rossiter and Doyle gave Dunn and Haussling the grey blanket and Patrolman William Boyle turned over the brown blanket.³⁷⁴

The Missing Blanket

At some point, there was a re-inventory of the items recovered from the Schindler Buick, and police found that the old brown blanket was now missing. Since the grey one was still in their possession, the NJSP wondered if the brown blanket had been accidentally taken, stolen as a souvenir, or purposely removed by someone to hamper the investigation. On July 11, Sergeant Haussling made the trip to Patrolman Boyle’s home to interview him about this blanket. Boyle told him that he had no knowledge of its present whereabouts and that he had

“not seen [n]or heard anything of the blanket referred to since the time he turned it over to these investigators about a year ago.”³⁷⁵ Captain Lamb ordered Detective Bornmann to question all persons who potentially came into with this blanket. This was a monumental task considering various NJSP were scattered across the state at various barracks, with some laid off or terminated, while others had resigned or returned to their departments after the term of their loan to the NJSP had ended.

Bornmann first went to the Jersey City Police Department, to speak to Inspector Walsh and Detectives Coar, Dunn, and Fitzgerald. Both Walsh and Coar had no memory of seeing the blanket and Dunn and Fitzgerald were on vacation. Bornmann next visited Alpine Station, interviewing seven men who did not recall ever seeing the blanket. He also interviewed Sergeant Haussling, who stated:

That he had brought the blanket in question from New York City on March 14, 1932 and that he had turned same over to Major Schoeffel on that date and does not recall seeing it after that or what the final disposition was on same.³⁷

The next day, Bornmann visited Englewood hoping to interview Mrs. Whateley, Betty Gow, and Thomas O’Callaghan. He learned that Betty Gow was at the Morrow summer home in Maine, Mrs. Whateley was in West Trenton, and no one could locate O’Callaghan. From there, Bornmann visited the Newark Police Department. Detective Strong was out of town, but both Detectives Sweeny and Carr said they had “ed seeing a blanket in the room used as an office at the Lindbergh residence but could not recall whether or not it had been the one in question….” Upon his return to headquarters, Bornmann was able to interview Mrs. Whateley. While she could not the blanket, she did think it possible that it had been “accidentally” packed up and brought to the Morrow home by “mistake” and promised to make a search for it.³⁷⁷ Other officers were interviewed without result. However, both Lieutenant Dunn and Sergeant Kubler claimed that while they did not see the brown blanket, they had “wrapped, tied, and tagged the grey blanket after it had laid around in the corner

of the office for several days.”³⁷⁸ Some days later, Bornmann went to Highfields and interviewed several officers. Trooper Wolf claimed he used his own blanket which he purchased from Sears-Roebuck, however, he did recall seeing a “brownish plaid auto robe in the possession of the Whateleys and which they had informed him they had brought with them to the United States from England.”³⁷ Bornmann conducted more interviews at Penns Neck and Farmingdale stations with no results. He returned to headquarters and interviewed more people, including Civilian Clerk Petty, who stated:

He had seen a blanket and other articles when they had been brought in from New York by investigators and they had been placed on the floor in front of the radio in the room that was being used as an office at the Lindbergh residence, and that these articles and blanket had laid on the floor and had been kicked around for several days and he cannot recall what had been the final disposition, or can he distinctly recall whether or not the blanket which he had seen was the auto robe or the soiled grey blanket which is now at these Headquarters.³⁸

Trooper Benjamin was interviewed, but his only memory of any blanket was a “a large brown or reddish steamer or auto robe,” which he believed belonged to Lindbergh and could be borrowed from the Lindbergh “living room” then returned by those assigned telephone duty in the garage.³⁸¹

The next day, Bornmann went to Ocean Grove, where he located Patrolman Jackson, now employed as a boardwalk duty officer. Jackson said he never saw any of the blankets in question but that he had brought his own army blankets which he kept after being discharged from the service. Bornmann also inquired about a story that Jackson had given some of the Lindbergh correspondence to a friend named Greenberg, who lived in Bordentown. Jackson explained he had obtained those letters from Detective Flannagan of the Jersey City Police Department, who also told him he was keeping some to bring home to his wife as well.³⁸² Bornmann stopped at the Belmar Police Department to interview exTrooper Watkins, who did not seeing any blanket. He then went to Hightstown station and interviewed Trooper Baldwin. Baldwin ed

seeing the “gray blanket with the blue border” which “laid on the floor in the corner of the room which was being used as an office at the Lindbergh home.” However, he never saw the “brown plaid auto robe which supposedly had been brought” at the same time “as the grey blanket.” Baldwin also had no recollection of men assigned to telephone duty “using an auto robe at nights,” which seemed to dispute Trooper Benjamin’s from the previous day.³⁸³ Bornmann then traveled to various barracks in Penns Neck, Somerville, Berkley Heights, and Morristown. All of these interviews yielded negative results.

On July 28, Bornmann visited ex-Trooper Harry Cain’s home in Beverly, New Jersey, to find he had since moved to the Panama Canal Zone. Bornmann went to sub-stations in Flemington and Columbus without success. On returning to Highfields, he interviewed Trooper Genz, who claimed he had never seen “an auto robe or steamer rug used by the men on telephone duty.”³⁸⁴ On July 31, Bornmann traveled to seven different sub-stations for interviews. While at the Flemington sub-station, he interviewed Trooper Middernacht who stated he had only been on scene “to construct a duplicate ladder of the one used in the kidnapping and had not seen the blanket in question.”³⁸⁵

The next day, August 1, there was a possible breakthrough. “Houseboy” Thomas O’Callaghan ed Detective Bornmann to advise him that…

… a brown plaid robe with fringe similar to that for which a search is now being conducted is at the present time in the Morrow home at Englewood and that this robe had been brought from the Lindbergh residence at Hopewell, N.J. but he was under the impression that this robe was the personal property of Colonel Lindbergh.³⁸

Sergeant Haussling was sent to the Morrow home to identify this blanket. In the meantime, Bornmann continued with his investigation. Over the next two days, he again visited the Newark Police Department, tracking down and interviewing ex-troopers. All interviews met with negative results, with the exception of ex-

Troopers Wirth and Lester Johnson, who did not recall seeing men on duty in the garage using “any robe answering the description” of the blanket.³⁸⁷ On August 4, Sergeant Haussling went to the Morrow estate and was shown a brown plaid blanket with fringe. Both O’Callaghan and Elsie Whateley stated they “did not believe” this blanket “belonged to Col. Lindbergh.” Haussling wrote:

This officer examined the blanket very carefully and is of the belief that it might be the blanket in question, due to the plaid coloring, the fringe, and grease spots on same and in a general way seems to be the blanket, although this officer is inclined to the belief that the original blanket was of a darker brown, but feels that this might be due to the length of time which has elapsed since the officer last saw the blanket.³⁸⁸

To satisfy any doubt, Sergeant Haussling went to the Jersey City Police a couple of days later, to show Detective Dunn the blanket turned over to him by O’Callaghan and Mrs. Whateley.

Det. Dunn carefully examined the blanket and positively stated that it was not the blanket which we procured from Officer Boyle. Det. Dunn further stated that the blanket was of a darker brown.³⁸

Haussling sought further confirmation from Officer Boyle and traveled to New York to interview him the next day.

This date proceeded to the home of Officer Boyle and there had him carefully examine the blanket. Officer Boyle positively stated that this was not the blanket. Officer Boyle stated that the blanket found in the car was of a darker brown and with larger blue stripes.³

Seemingly expecting this result, Bornmann continued his investigation. He once again toured the various barracks and sub-stations seeking interviews. He visited Berlin, Hammonton, Absecon, and Port-Norris without result. The next day, he visited Troop “A” and even tracked down ex-Trooper Updyke on Ship Bottom Beach, where he now worked as a lifeguard.³ ¹ Again, no results. It appears that on this date the search for this blanket was finally abandoned, but the tenor and intensity of the entire investigation into this aspect of the case appears to show law enforcement’s belief that the blanket had been intentionally removed by someone with access to it in the Lindbergh home.

The Grey Blanket

The investigation into the grey blanket and its possible origins was conducted concurrently with of the missing brown blanket. It began with a visit to the Pennsylvania Museum School of Industrial Art in Philadelphia, where the blanket was examined and a list of “woolen blanket mills, of New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio” was sent to the NJSP. ³ ² After visiting several of these companies, Bornmann went to the “St. Mary’s Woolen Mills” on 40 Worth Street in New York. Sales manager T. B. Keen examined the blanket. He believed the blanket could be their “Alaska” grade but wanted to send it to their factory for verification.³ ³ Over the next several days, other mills were visited but all denied it was their product. In August, Bornmann went to Lakehurst Naval Air Station to determine if blankets of this type were used there, but found they were not. By November, Bornmann had almost exhausted all possible leads, when Captain Lamb ordered him to make the trip to the Ohio State Penitentiary and to pursue Mr. Keen’s suggestion by visiting the St. Mary’s factory. Bornmann examined the blankets made at the prison and found there was “no comparison.” At St. Mary’s, Bornmann interviewed both company President Herzing and company Secretary Steve. Steve made a “thorough examination” under a “magnifying glass” with a careful comparison to their “Alaska” type blanket by examining the “texture, material, and stitching.”³ ⁴ Mr. Steve told Bornmann that he was…

…reasonably sure without being positive that the blanket was one of their “Alaska” grade, and that it had been originally a full size blanket measuring 66” x 84”.³ ⁵

Steve also told Bornmann that the factory only sold these blankets “in large quantities” and that, in his opinion, the blanket was about “six years old.”³ Steve then compiled a list of “concerns to whom” they had “furnished the Gray Alaska blanket during the years 1927, 1928, and 1929.”³ ⁷ The first listing was “B. Altman & Co.” of New York City, which very much interested the NJSP since both the Morrow and Lindbergh families were known to make purchases there. Lieutenant Keaten and Sergeant Haussling visited the store, verified the shipment, and arrangements were made between Altman’s credit manager and the office of Lindbergh attorney and confidant Colonel Henry Breckinridge “to check the s” of both families to “ascertain whether any of them had ever purchased a blanket of this type.” The records did not “reveal any such purchase.”³ ⁸ The investigators then learned that B. Altman Co. had received 1,500 of these blankets in 1927 and 1,200 in 1929. 600 of these blankets were sent to their West 37th Street branch. But while some blankets were sold from their stores, others were resold in larger numbers from there as well. For example, 600 went to the “Mills Hotel” at their Bleeker Street location in 1927, with another 1,200 in two separate purchases. Police also learned that smaller amounts also went to such places as the “Queens-borough Hospital,” “City of N.Y. Clinic,” “Harlem Hospital,” “World Sanitorium in Texas,” as well as to various yachts. Law enforcement even sought out the eight blankets traced to the yacht “Alcalda,” located at the Marine Basin at the foot of New York City’s Fulton Street.³ Efforts focused on lists of buyers and missing blankets from the groups that were purchased. At hotels, police investigated the numbers of those stolen blankets and the possibilities that could arise from that information. At Mills Hotel on Bleeker Street, it was learned that some blankets had been deemed “unserviceable” since their purchase, while others were destroyed by the guests, and others were stolen. Hotel records did not extend back to 1928, but a list of those who destroyed blankets, and those names in rooms where the blankets disappeared among their branches were turned over to investigators.

Andrew Miller

Found among the names on the list of Mills Hotel rooms where a blanket had been stolen was Andrew Miller.⁴ Despite the fact that this occurred on April 4, 1932, the police considered it a possible lead. Miller was Lindbergh’s neighbor, and had been questioned at 6 AM on March 2 by Detective Leon.⁴ ¹ He worked for the “Jenkins Brothers Manufacturers” in New York City and frequently stayed at the Mills Hotel. Detective Leon, along with Detective McCarthy of the New York City Bomb Squad, interviewed Mr. Whittimore, the hotel manager. Leon and McCarthy learned from Whittimore that Miller rented a room by the week, always alone. They proceeded to Jenkins Brothers and interviewed Assistant Manager John Hintz, who advised that Miller was of good “reputation,” a “steady worker,” who performed “satisfactory” work.⁴ ² Miller was then brought to police headquarters and questioned, where it was learned that he met Lindbergh on two separate occasions, once when Lindbergh and Anne came to Miller’s home in search of their dog.

He stated that he is married has a wife and five children living near the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, that he has lived in New Jersey for 7 years, that his wife is a sickly woman and he moved out in the country for her health. The only time that he goes home is on week ends leaving New York City and going to Jersey City where he catches the 11:58 A. M. train on the Jersey Central Railroad for Hopewell and walks from the station to his home.⁴ ³

Considering this new development, Police visited Mr. Whittimore again. It was learned that Miller stayed at the Mills Hotel from February 20 to February 23, from February 26 to February 27, and from February 29 through March 2. They left a memorandum at the desk for the clerk to “be on the lookout” for Miller and to “look the man over carefully” for a description and anything else worthy of note.⁴ ⁴

Back to the General Search

While there’s nothing more in the NSJP files on Miller, the investigation into the grey blanket was far from over, and the police continued their relentless search where any of these blankets wound up. At the “Peddie School” in Hightstown, police tracked down the “two” blankets that a father ordered and gave to his son to take to school.⁴ ⁵ More yachts, houseboats, hospitals, hotels, and department stores like L. Bamberger & Co. were investigated concerning this blanket, the investigation reaching as far afield as Portland, Maine; St. Johnsbury, Vermont; Lee, Massachusetts; Pottstown and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Annapolis, Maryland. Lead after lead was followed, with absolutely no stone left unturned. By March 1934, with the assistance of Deputy Chief Harry Walsh, Detectives Coar and Fitzgerald, they were reunited with Detective Bornmann visiting every location that one of these blankets may have been, including equipment companies and medical centers. It was learned that several blankets had been loaned out by the Jersey City Medical Center to “needy families” and many were never returned after the disastrous “Salt Peter Plant” fire in 1927.⁴ All of this hard work yielded nothing.

Hall-Mills Murder Connection

On March 27, 1934, Detective Bornmann got a call from Deputy Chief Harry Walsh, regarding information from the Superintendent of Laundry S. F. Roach, of the same Jersey City Medical Center Bornmann visited only the day before. Bornmann, along with Detective DeGaetano, returned to the hospital, where Roach told them:

…that during the Halls-Mills trial at Somerville, N. J., they had transported a patient to and from a Jersey City Hospital to the Court House who had been wrapped in a number of the blankets of the type under investigation, and he thought it possible that one or more of the blankets might have been stolen from the ambulance while same was parked in Somerville while the driver attended the trial with the patient, who he stated had been Jennie Easton alias McDonald,

alias The Gibson woman better known as “The Pig Woman” of Hamilton Road, New Brunswick, N. J. Records at the hospital show that this woman was itted to the hospital on October 7, 1929 and that she had left the hospital on January 27, 1930 and had died on February 7, 1930. ⁴ ⁷

However, investigators learned that Roach had no records of any of “the Pig Lady’s” blankets missing. He nevertheless wanted to share this information because of Somerville’s close proximity to Hopewell. In August, Special Agent Turrou was briefed on Schindler’s car by Lieutenant Keaten and Lieutenant Finn of the NYPD. Turrou was informed of their theory that the Schindler car had been used in the Lindbergh kidnapping but that an “exhaustive” investigation turned up nothing and they were unable to determine who stole the vehicle.⁴ ⁸

The Morrow Phone Calls

Beginning in April 1932, police extensively investigated the toll calls made from the Morrow home. However, the only calls investigated were those “made by the servants” from January through mid-March of that year, from the estate’s two house phones.⁴ All information obtained from the holders of those numbers was checked and deemed “of no value to the investigation of the Lindbergh Case.”⁴¹ However, this investigation was resurrected in the fall of 1933, now broadened to cover all Morrow household and all phones on the premises. This next investigation began on September 7, 1933, over a year-anda-half after the crime. Attempts were made to find the records belonging to “Englewood 3-7646, 3-0255, 3-1982” as well as those for “3-1981,” “3-0026,” and “3-4960,” back to the night of the crime.⁴¹¹ These numbers corresponded accordingly:

Englewood 3-0026: Mrs. Morrow’s Sitting Room (Non-Published). Englewood 3-0255: House Phone.

Englewood 3-1981: Chauffeur’s Phone (Non-Published). Englewood 3-1982: House Phone. Englewood 3-4960: Arthur Springer’s Home Phone. Englewood 3-7646: Arthur Springer’s Office Phone.

Police were unable to retrieve the toll slips for the unpublished numbers at the time of the kidnapping and were told that all records had been “destroyed.” They were, however, able to obtain records for the previous six months.

Frank Seiler

On October 4, 1933, Corporal Horn was ordered by Lieutenant Keaten to investigate a man by the name of Frank Seiler, who lived at 807 Avenue “H” in Brooklyn.⁴¹² Seiler’s phone number had turned up among those called from a phone located at the Morrow estate. Upon his arrival, Horn found this home vacant, and in an area “populated by people of moderate means.” Horn interviewed neighbors and discovered that Seiler was around 35 or 40, had lived at that address for about 10 years with his wife and daughter, and had worked for “Charles H. Finch Lumber Co.” on Coney Island. Horn also learned that Seiler and his wife separated, Seiler supposedly moving in with his father at 909 Avenue on September 29. Horn also wrote:

Learned from very reliable authority, who has been personally acquainted with the Seiler family for the last twenty years, that Frank Seiler bears the best of reputation and is an influential business man, also that he is a member of the Crescent Athletic Club, Brooklyn, N. Y. which is reputed to be a very discreet organization.⁴¹³

Why would a man of only “moderate means” belong to such a prestigious athletic club?

A report written by Detective Patterson, dated two days after Horn’s visit to the former Seiler home, appears to contain a bombshell. Patterson had been assigned to compile and list all names associated with any calls made from the Morrow phones. Patterson looked up all the numbers called from one of the various phones previously listed above, then researched the names associated with it. Patterson started with the 1933-34 phone book, then used older phone books to locate additional addresses for previous years. One name tied to a number called was listed to the following:

Frank Seiler. 1934-33 listed Frank Seiler, salesman, 537 West 149th Street, Apartment 33.⁴¹⁴

Someone at the Morrow family home called a number associated with a man linked to the address listed on the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip.

Patterson began investigating Seiler. This did not involve anything intrusive as associated with the “537 West 149th Street” address, “due to the fact that other angles of the investigation center at this point.” Patterson merely interviewed the building superintendent and Post Office letter carrier responsible for mail delivery to that address. He discovered that mailman Patrick Murray had worked that route for “4 years” and “never” ed “having delivered any mail to anyone by that name at that address.”⁴¹⁵ Meanwhile, Lieutenant Keaten detailed Sergeant Zapolsky, who was already involved in the various investigations of J. J. Faulkner, to conduct a more thorough investigation. Zapolsky went to the “Plymouth Apartments” at “537 West 149th Street” and learned that “Apartment 33” had been vacant from “January 29 until February 1931,” at which time Richard Kretzmer, the brother of the building’s owner, moved in and continued to live there.⁴¹ Zapolsky interviewed the superintendent, William Bender, concerning Seiler. Bender claimed the name was unfamiliar to him and there had

“never been a such a tenant” living there during his employment. Zapolsky then had Patrick Murray write a fake letter to Seiler in apartment 33. Once this delivery was attempted, the Kretzmers told the mailman that no one by that name lived there and they had no idea who he was.⁴¹⁷

As the investigation continued, Lieutenant Keaten ordered Patterson to the New York City Public Library to that Seiler’s name was attached to the Plymouth Apartments address. Patterson checked the “current issue” of the Official New York City Directory and found the listing:

Frank Seiler, 537 West 149th Street, Apartment 33 (Salesman).⁴¹⁸

Patterson next visited the Motor Vehicle Bureau on Worth Street and requested records on Seiler. One listing included a 1932 chauffeur’s license renewal application stating Seiler was 5'11”, 187 lbs., born on June 17, 1901, living at “40 Kansas Street, Hackensack, N.J.,” and employed at “Jersey Bus Lines Incorporated of 152 South Van Brunt Street, Englewood, N. J.”⁴¹ Not only was Brunt Street in Englewood, but this address was also on the same street that Betty Gow, Red Johnson, and their friends the Junges frequented for coffee and ice cream.⁴² Patterson had discovered yet another connection between Seiler and the Morrow-connected phone call.

Patterson’s investigation then took him to the R. L. Polk and Company, Manufacturers of Directories on 354 Fourth Avenue, where he interviewed the manager, V. A. Eacret.

Mr. Eacret had the files checked and produced the card of the above named which indicated that they secured that name on February 10, 1932 through an employee of this company. The card carried the symbol “R” which indicated that the above subject was either living with someone else or was a roomer at

Apartment 33.⁴²¹

Patterson, knowing that Sergeant Zapolsky determined Richard Kretzmer resided in this apartment at this time, was baffled. Keaten next ordered both Zapolsky and Patterson to interview Richard Kretzmer’s nephew, Arthur Bremer. They visited him at the Chrysler Building, learning Bremer lived in Englewood at “97 Knickerbocker Road” and was a “Landscape Architect and Contractor.”⁴²² Bremer explained that the owner of Plymouth Apartments, Payne L. Kretzmer, had been deemed “incompetent” and was living in “Apartment 75 of the same building with his male nurse.” The court had appointed Arthur, his cousin “John L. Kretzmer,” and the “Irving Trust Company” as the “committee of the property.” Bremer went on to say that Richard Kretzmer and his wife were being paid $60.00 per month out of Payne’s estate, claiming his uncle was both “deaf and dumb” and that his wife was also “hard of hearing.” Bremer told the investigators “he was absolutely certain that Kretzmer has no one rooming with him.”⁴²³ Two days later, Patterson and Zaplosky drove to Hackensack to investigate Seiler further. They met with postal officials, including carrier Homer Dunn, who told police that Seiler had been a Hackensack resident for about 13 years. Dunn claimed he did not know where Seiler had resided for the last two years, but did know that he was once employed by the “Suburban Bus Company.” Dunn also ed that Seiler had been a Hackensack police officer for a short time about “five years ago.”⁴²⁴

A couple days later, Detective Patterson received a letter from V. A. Eacret, providing the name of the man, Vincent Gillies, who had “obtained the information on Frank Seiler of 537 W. 149th Street,” for the Official New York City Directory which listed that information.⁴²⁵ Both Zapolsky and Patterson interviewed Gillies at his home at 110th Street, Richmond Hill, Queens. Gillies told the men that he “ed” the “537 West 149th Street” “Apartment House” but did not recall the name “Frank Seiler.” His explanation was…

…due to the fact that he took an average of two hundred names a day for a period of four months, but stated that if that name appeared in the directory in

the section canvassed by him that someone in that apartment, in which he is listed, Apartment 33, furnished him with the information concerning Seiler for the directory.⁴²

There was another attempt by postal workers to assist police by using a fake ed letter addressed to Frank Seiler at 537 West 149th Street, but the letter carrier was once again informed by Richard Kretzmer that “he does not know such individual.”⁴²⁷ Meanwhile, Detective Patterson followed up with Sergeant Nebeling of the Hackensack Police Department concerning Seiler. What he learned completely shattered the notion that Seiler was of a good reputation. Nebeling told Patterson that Seiler had been on the force for a year, from 1927 to 1928, but left because he had become “involved in a great many debts which he did not pay.” Nebeling claimed that Seiler later attempted reinstatement but was “unsuccessful.” He claimed that after Seiler left the force, he moved to an upstate farm with his father but returned to live with his mother in a rooming house on Berry Street in Hackensack. For a period of a year-and-a-half, Hackensack police kept the house under surveillance because of a “suspected crap game” that “was being run there.”⁴²⁸ According to Nebeling, Seiler and his mother moved to New York City in the “first part of 1932 and lived there until the early part of 1933.” He then relocated to Arkansas where, Seiler told Nebeling, he had been a “singer in a quartet,” but had returned to Hackensack approximately five months prior and was now employed by the “Suburban Bus Company” on Moore Street.⁴²

On December 4, Arthur Bremer wrote a letter to Sergeant Zapolsky to inform him that he’d spoken with his uncle, Richard Kretzmer, and when asked about Seiler said “he never heard of him.”⁴³ Two weeks later, Condon was shown a picture of Seiler and told police “the subject did not in any way resemble the man with whom he had during the Lindbergh Case.”⁴³¹ Another three weeks elapsed before Detective Patterson drove to 101 LaSalle Street in New York City to interview Seiler’s mother, Elizabeth Ellinger. She told Patterson that…

…her son Frank had resided in New York City but that she did not know at what address. She did not know whether he had ever lived in the vicinity of 149th Street or 150th Street. That he occasionally visited her at the LaSalle Street Address but did not tell her where he was living.⁴³²

This led to the interview of Seiler on February 7. Accompanied by Hackensack police patrolman George Ellenger, Detective Patterson questioned Seiler, who told the men that…

…he never lived on West 150th or West 149th Street, New York City. That he had lived on West 157th Street near Broadway for about one year when he was sixteen years of age. That he moved from this address to Audubon Avenue and lived there for a period of about two years. This was fifteen years ago. During the past year he resided with his mother at 101 LaSalle Street, New York City for several months. The balance of the time he had lived in Hackensack, N. J. with the exception of about six months during 1931 at which time he visited a relative in the middle west for a period of six months.⁴³³

This is where the investigation into Seiler came to an end.

Observations & Questions

Obviously, the Hackensack Seiler was not the same man as the Brooklyn Seiler. One had an excellent reputation, lived in Brooklyn for 10 years until September 1933 with his wife and daughter, was connected to a prestigious athletic club, and worked at a lumber company, possibly as a salesman. The other was a disgraced cop of questionable character, moved often, had lived with his mother, worked as a bus driver, and once as a singer in a quartet. But if we can clearly see these aren’t the same people, why couldn’t the police make this

determination? Next, who called Frank Seiler from the Morrow home and how did anyone named Frank Seiler find his way into the New York City Directory for 537 West 149th Street, apartment 33? Finally, why was this investigation allowed to die like it did?

Could it be that police were more interested in the Hackensack connection because they were suspicious of Betty Gow? During the J. J. Faulkner investigation, police made an investigation at the Hackensack Trust Company. While interviewing the bank’s vice president, police were informed…

…that Betty Gow had an at this bank, and procuring the records it was ascertained that she had withdrawn her ($200.00) on November 30, 1931. She gave the name of Bessie Gowat Gow [sic] and the following addresses, in addition to Col. Lindbergh’s appeared on her bank record:-183 Kings Court, Teaneck, N. J., 82 Glenwood Road, Englewood, N. J. The book No. is #-36496.⁴³⁴

Could it be the police became one-sided in their pursuit based upon the Hackensack connections?

Carl O. Giessler

Once the $2,980 in Lindbergh ransom money had been discovered, all deposit slips were rounded up and sifted through.⁴³⁵ Among them was one made out in the name of “J. J. Faulkner” for that amount. Police interviewed the bank teller who received this slip, James P. Estey, and asked him about the person who made the transaction. Estey had been the busiest teller that day, and as he struggled to recall, he told investigators it “might have been a woman.”⁴³

Teller Estey ventured this opinion to Lieutenant Keaton [sic] and Agent Frank Wilson, but stated he had no particular reason for so believing other than a rather strong impression. Although thoroughly questioned for hours, Estey was unable to recall definitely who ed the money or to give a description of any particular woman.⁴³⁷

The address written on that slip was “537 W 149,” which corresponded with the Plymouth Apartments. An investigation determined no one by the name of “J. J. Faulkner” lived there. However, Agent Wilson and Lieutenant Keaten soon discovered that a woman named Jane E. Faulkner lived there at one time. An application for marriage was obtained, dated “Feb. 17th, 1921,” and listing “Jane Emily Faulkner” and “Carl Oswin Giessler” as the bride and groom, with Faulkner’s residence listed as “537 West 149.”⁴³⁸ It was later learned that Giessler was naturalized as a citizen in the Court of Common Pleas in Hackensack, New Jersey.⁴³ A serious investigation surrounding this information ensued, police’s general attitude reflected in Lt. Keaten’s report:

At this time there was no doubt in our minds that Carl Oswin Giessler was the subject who had deposited the $2990. and had signed the deposit slip for $2980. is one and the same.⁴⁴

There were several reasons for this, both at the time and as time progressed.

Handwriting expert Albert D. Osborn had been shown the deposit slip and the Giessler’s handwriting on the marriage application, and was asked whether or not Giessler wrote it. “Osborn stated that the handwriting in his opinion was one and the same.”⁴⁴¹ These same documents were submitted to another handwriting expert, Dr. Wilmer Souder of the Bureau of Standards, who also “positively stated that the signature of J. J. Faulkner was in Giessler’s handwriting.”⁴⁴² Another point of interest was that Giessler was a “partner” with the “Max

Schling Corporation” and managed the business. His son, Carl D. Giessler, was also employed there.⁴⁴³ While investigating this company, a bill to “Mrs. Dwight Morrow” from the “Max Schling, Seedsman, Inc.” for “flowers, bulbs, etc.” dated February 14, 1929, was discovered. This order came through the Meadowbrook Nurseries in Englewood.⁴⁴⁴

Carl D. Giessler

Interest also focused on Carol O. Giessler’s two grown children by a previous marriage. His son, Carl D., lived at 3060 Decatur Avenue in the Bronx from 1929 through 1931, an address that “was in the next block to the residence of Dr. John F. Condon.”⁴⁴⁵ Even more, while digging through Giessler’s financial records, Agent Wilson discovered that he wrote a check for $32.40 to “Herman Halpern” of Mt. Vernon, New York. Wilson wrote:

Attention is called to the fact that on June 30, 1932 one of the Lindbergh ransom bills ($5.00) was found in the receipts of the Mt. Vernon Post Office. The employee in the Post Office having charge of the funds stated that this bill had probably been received from Max Halpern or E. A. Trotter. The business address and residence of Max Halpern is the same as that of Herman Halpern, which indicates that they are related in some way. Inasmuch as the $5.00 bill may have been received from the same source as the payee of the check issued by Carl D. Giessler, it presented to Lt. Keaton [sic] and myself an important development.⁴⁴

Phyllis Leipold

Giessler’s other child was his daughter Phyllis, who was married to a man named Henry Leipold. Investigation revealed that she had purchased a railroad ticket at Grand Central Station bound for Montreal “under the name Phil

McCall.” Both Wilson and Keaten immediately got in touch with Canada Customs and Immigration “to co-operate and search” Phyllis Leipold, to “see whether or not she was carrying any of the Lindbergh money out of the country.”⁴⁴⁷ Two New York detectives were also assigned to tail Phyllis by riding on the same train. According to Agent Wilson:

At our request the Canadian agent caused a search to be made of Mrs. Leipold and her baggage but nothing was found to assist us. She was not informed of why the search was made and the Canadian Inspector advised her that it was merely usual procedure. Lt. Finn and another officer of the New York Police Department followed Mrs. Leipold to her destination and ascertained that she was to be in Canada for a week visiting a nurse who had attended school with her in New York City.⁴⁴⁸

It was shortly after this episode that police decided they should learn more about Phyllis’s husband, Henry Leipold.

Henry C. Leipold

As was typical, police first conducted interviews at the Post Office and requested tracings of Leipold’s letters. They next met with Leipold’s postal carrier to seek any relevant information.⁴⁴ Another interesting investigation concerned a search at the convalescent home “where Edna Sharp was a patient” for the names of Giessler and Leipold family , but it was found that all records up to 1931 had been destroyed. Meanwhile, Treasury Agents Rosenthal and Hill visited Max Schling Seedsman, Inc. for an apparent “income tax investigation.” While there, the men noted:

Among these petty cash vouchers was one dated March 29, 1932, showing the

purchase of a New Jersey map, the amount of which was 50¢. Among the cancelled checks submitted was one made payable to Henry Leipold in the amount of $18.45.⁴⁵

The men returned the next day to continue with this investigation. They were met by one of the owners, “Alfred Scheider,” who asked the agents if he could talk to them “in confidence.”

We assured him that he could; whereupon, he stated that a short time ago one of the officials of the N.Y. Trust Co. called up C. O. Giessler and told him that an Internal Revenue agent was at the bank and wanted photostatic copies of his, Giessler’s current checks (for the month of May). As a result of this conversation, Mr. Giessler was very much upset and immediately informed Mr. Scheider, who told Mr. Giessler not to be alarmed, that probably it was the usual income tax check-up.⁴⁵¹

However, it was also during this investigation that these agents found a petty cash voucher for $3.98, which concerned a March 1, 1932 lecture that Carl O. Giessler attended in Peekskill, New York. Wilson noted that “if so, he could not have been at Hopewell.”⁴⁵² As the efforts into investigating Leipold continued, police learned he sent a cablegram to Munich, , to “Wm. Krippendorf” in January 1933, which “strongly advised him to sail third class.” Investigators found this to be suspicious.⁴⁵³ Authorities began to ramp up investigations into Leipold’s finances, expanding their inquiries to include Wilhelm Krippendorf and his wife. Police obtained a copy for Therese Krippendorf’s re-entry permit from the Department of Labor, which prompted Lieutenant Keaten to note in his report:

Would suggest that the signature of Mrs. Krippendorf be compared with the writing in the Lindbergh Ransom notes as we believe there are some similarities.⁴⁵⁴

Photographs of Wilhelm Krippendorf were also shown to Condon who “carefully examined” them but stated they “did not resemble the man with whom he had during the Lindbergh Case.”⁴⁵⁵

As it pertained to Leipold, police learned his previous apartment was costing him $90.00 per month until he moved into a home on May 1, 1933, which he owned and was worth $11,000. It was also discovered that he had interest in potentially buying another property.⁴⁵ On June 15, police tapped Leipold’s phone but, that same day, “due to conditions in Westchester County,” the phone tap was disconnected by Detective Creamer and only one call was ever overheard.⁴⁵⁷ A few days later, Troopers were at the Pines Hotel in Lakewood, combing through the hotel’s searching for the names “Henry C. Leipold” and “Carl D. Giessler” but this met with negative results.⁴⁵⁸ A couple days later, police were at the Princeton Nurseries, where they learned that Henry Leipold had made a $22.00 purchase through their White Plains representative.⁴⁵ Another positive development was that cab driver Joseph Perrone had been taken by the New York Police Department “on more than one occasion” to look “over Leipold,”⁴ telling authorities that Leipold resembled the fare who had taken him to the intersection where he was eventually hailed by the man who asked him to deliver the note to Condon’s Decatur Avenue home.⁴ ¹

The Giessler Questionings

Part of the strategy was timing. Police did not want to pick up Giessler prematurely and waited for investigations to develop certain information before tipping their hands. However, on June 26, 1933, Captain Oliver set out to Max Schling Seedsmen to pick up Giessler without the knowledge or consent of the NJSP or Treasury agents. Once this was discovered, word was sent by Lieutenant Keaten to Agent Wilson and Captain Lamb. Lamb quickly sent for Colonel Schwarzkopf, who proceeded to New York City Police Headquarters on Broome Street. By 2:30 PM, all relevant law enforcement was present, and the

questioning began. Giessler was shown the “J. J. Faulkner” deposit slip and explained that it had been associated with a batch of Lindbergh ransom money.

Giessler positively denied that he was ever at the Federal Reserve Bank and that the signature of J. J. Faulkner was his. He volunteered to submit to us specimens of his handwriting. A copy of which is attached to this report. Mr. Giessler was unable to give us any information as to who might have used the name of Faulkner together with the address of West 537 149th Street.⁴ ²

Giessler went on to that his wife, whose maiden name was Faulkner, had lived at that address until 1921, when they were married. From there, the interrogation became a brainstorming session, in an attempt to think of anyone who might know that information. Aside from Giessler’s partners, Max Schling and Arthur Scheider, only one other name was brought up – a former bookkeeper named Morris Schechtman, who had been fired for embezzlement.⁴ ³ However, police later thoroughly investigated him, officially ruling him out.⁴ ⁴

The next interview was with Mr. and Mrs. Giessler, who willingly came to the IRS office for additional questioning. Both “showed a desire to fully and satisfactorily explain all matters” about which they were questioned.⁴ ⁵ Mr. Giessler happily wrote page after page of dictated handwriting for authorities.

Mr. Giessler answered all the questions put to him without any hesitancy, giving an of himself since his arrival in this Country. The story related by Mr. Giessler corroborates with the investigation heretofore conducted by the investigator concerning his financial affairs, etc. Mr. Giessler assured the investigators of his co-operation to the fullest extent in order to locate the party who deposited the Gold Certificates at the Federal Reserve Bank…⁴

Mrs. Giessler was asked with whom she might have a connection that could’ve

written her maiden name on the Faulkner deposit slip. She offered three possibilities. The first was her sister-in-law Harriet Faulkner, whose maiden name was Chapman. Another was Arthur Frick, who used to visit her mother and knew the family well. Next was Homer A. Boushey who Mrs. Giessler, while working for the “Thomas F. Logan Advertising Agency,” had reported for “taking sums of money from the Agency.”⁴ ⁷ (Boushey’s handwriting was later ruled out by Dr. Souder, and his picture was examined by Condon who said it did not match.)⁴ ⁸ After the interview, Lieutenant Keaten was satisfied that the Giesslers “had no connection with the deposit slip.”⁴ However, the investigators did believe “that someone knowing” Mr. or Mrs. Giessler…

…when she was single and residing at 537 West 149th Street, had used the name J. J. Faulkner, on the ticket and that it might have been an enemy of the family, a friend or some slight acquaintance of the family.⁴⁷

A few days later, Agent Frank Wilson called Captain Oliver’s office and told investigators that Dr. Souder “had changed his opinion in reference to Giessler’s handwriting being the same as the handwriting on the deposit slip…”⁴⁷¹ This was attributed to the new samples which had been solicited at the interview. Lieutenant Keaten seemed to believe otherwise and was agitated by the flip-flop:

Attached hereto is a photostat copy of the handwriting of Carl Oswin Giessler and an enlarged photostat copy of the Faulkner Signature from the Deposit slip of May 1st, 1933, which Dr. Souder now states does not compare with the handwriting of Giessler or the Ransom notes, although at an earlier date, Dr. Souder positively stated that the Giessler handwriting and the signature of Faulkner was one and the same.⁴⁷²

After all, a great deal of manpower and resources were used based Souder’s opinion, so it is easy to understand why Keaten would be upset. It was on the same day that Albert D. Osborn submitted a report which concluded that due to the small amount of writing on the deposit slip, “it may be that he [Giessler]

wrote these words on the slip,” but this limited amount prevented him from “connecting him positively as the writer.”⁴⁷³

The Leipold Interview

On July 7, 1933, Henry Leipold was brought in for questioning.⁴⁷⁴ He arrived at Captain Oliver’s office and was questioned about the Lindbergh kidnapping. Leipold said he came to America from in 1923 and began working for a florist named Moeller in Lincolndale, New York. In 1930, he went into the landscaping business for himself and met Phyllis Giessler soon after. They married and moved to Mamaroneck, New York, before moving to White Plains.⁴⁷⁵ When asked about the Krippendorf cablegram, Leipold explained that Krippendorf had written asking Leipold for money which Leipold could not afford to loan him, and travelling third-class “was simply a suggestion on Leipold’s part to save Krippendorf some money.” Leipold gave his whereabouts for March 1 and April 2, 1932, and willingly submitted handwriting samples to investigators.⁴⁷ After the interview, police “agreed that he should be eliminated from further consideration.”⁴⁷⁷

Leipold’s Suicide

On August 21, 1933, Treasury Agent Hill received a call from Mr. Giessler, informing him that his son-in-law, Henry Leipold, had committed suicide. Police met Giessler at the Hotel Victoria to learn more. Giessler told the men that Leipold had killed himself the day before at 12:15 PM at his home in LaGrangeville. He explained that since Leipold’s interview by police he had been…

…under the impression that someone was following him, and that his telephone

wires were tapped, and that during this period he had threatened several times to take his own life. Mr. Giessler said that on numerous occasions, he and his daughter Phyllis Leipold had questioned him (Leipold) in reference to any connection he may have had with the Lindbergh Case. Leipold repeatedly denied having anything to do with this case, but stated that “They” were after him because 8 or 9 years ago he had been intimate with a man’s wife in and that “They” were trying to make a Federal Case out of it.⁴⁷⁸

However, Leipold later changed his story, claiming it was “because of something that happened when he was employed at Moeller’s at Lincolndale, New York some years ago.” Giessler took Leipold to Moeller, who said that while Leipold worked for him, some funds had come up short, but Leipold was never definitely accused and “that as far as he was concerned the matter was dropped.”⁴⁷ Since nothing about this suicide made any sense, police continued their investigation into Leipold. They interviewed Phyllis Leipold along with her parents and attorney, Lester B. Nelson. Phyllis claimed that she saw signs of “Dementia Praecox” in her husband for about “six months” before his death and that he had “repeatedly” asked her to allow him to take his own life. She also claimed that he told her this matter had nothing to do with the Lindbergh case, but investigators were using it as “subterfuge” for something else. She offered investigators an example of his behavior here:

That he saw a rope hanging from a rafter in her father’s barn and told her that this was a suggestion for him to do the honorable thing and take his own life.⁴⁸

She claimed it was statements like this which led to suspicions that her husband was involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping in some way. On the day of the suicide, Leipold had begged his wife to allow him to kill himself. She claimed that instead she read to him from the Bible, emphasizing a verse on “how to conquer the enemy.” She claimed he cried and asked to be alone to make peace with God. Phyllis left him lying comfortably on the couch and went outside to sit by the brook when she heard a “thump,” which she discovered was the result of her husband shooting himself in the head with a “22 Cal. Rifle” kept in the

closet.⁴⁸¹ She turned over to police two suitcases full of personal letters, receipts, etc. which they combed through and investigated. One name in this material led to the interview of Mr. Krieger, an attorney and friend of Leipold. He claimed Leipold was a “very high type German and was a shrewd business man.” He also said that Leipold was “very much put out to think he had been questioned about something he had no connection with” and believed it was all “subterfuge” for something else. Krieger stated that he began to see a “change” in Leipold when Leipold accused him and other friends of “trying to make trouble,” which he attributed to “losing his mind” due to being “shell shocked” during World War I. Krieger planned to talk to Leipold’s family about putting him in a sanitorium, but Leipold killed himself before Krieger got the chance.⁴⁸² Police also visited Condon with a picture of Leipold which he “scrutinized” and then “stated that it did not in any way resemble the man who he ed during the Lindbergh Case.”⁴⁸³

Leonardo da Vinci

This renewed effort to re-investigate Leipold began in somewhat half-hearted fashion. Police gathered what appeared to be a treasure trove of names, dates, and places which could have led them to a limitless amount of information, but it seems since they eliminated Leipold previously, they had little interest in totally investing in him once the investigation restarted. There were the 40 Leipold letters that the Giessler family attorney, Lester Nelson, turned over to Sergeant Zapolsky,⁴⁸⁴ the earliest dating from 1916, with the majority written between the years 1928 and 1932.⁴⁸⁵ These letters were then translated from German to English, with copies of the translations retained by police and the originals returned to the Giessler family.⁴⁸ It’s important to note that researchers are now at the mercy of the spelling and translations of these copies at the NJSP Archives. It’s been my experience that mistakes did occur from time to time through this process, but without the originals to compare them to, there is just no way to be certain as to their accuracy. Among these letters are some which contain the most bizarre topic I think I’ve ever laid eyes on as a researcher – a series of communications between Professor Nikola Michailow and Henry Leipold concerning the sale of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci.

On April 24, 1932, Leipold informed Michailow that he would be able to sell the painting with a certificate of authenticity from “Berebson [sic], “London and Marle….”⁴⁸⁷ Michailow’s reply included the following:

I have heard of Berenson but I am not willing to send the picture as the Italian Government might take possession of the picture. I have send [sic] a test card to Professor Gronau, and he advised me that the test card issued by Dr. Voss, who tested the picture is priceless, as Dr. Vohs [sic] is known all over the world as a good authority on paintings.⁴⁸⁸

Professor Michailow wrote further that the full value of the painting is “$250000” and that he “requested his party” to “raise the commission” to 10%, meaning that he and Leipold would each receive 5%. He recommended to Leipold that his “buyer” travel to Berlin to examine the painting for himself. He also wrote:

I am sending you the copy of other painters who have ed on the picture for instance Berenson, who is living in Italy and we are taking a chance of having the picture seized by the Italian Government as every valuable picture is looked upon by the Italian Government as Government property, so I would suggest that your buyer would come to Berlin and examine the picture here.⁴⁸

A follow-up letter informed Leipold that Professor Michailow did both “Marle” and Bernard Berenson, but claimed he was “supposed to be old and sickly, and in no condition to travel.” He once again claimed that the painting had been “thoroughly examined by Professor Herman Vohs [sic] of Berlin” who did not charge for the authentication. “The picture is priceless as the colors of Leonardo, which were at that time unknown to painters, are visible.”⁴ He added that “Mr. Mayer of Schleissheim” had also “declared that the picture no doubt is one of the mater pieces.”⁴ ¹ Eight days after this letter, Michailow sent a

telegram to Leipold which read:

Marle Gutachten on her way-⁴ ²

In another letter, Michailow once again tried to dissuade Leipold concerning Berenson as he was “supposed to have made some very bad mistakes.” That “Mr. Berenson is known by a lot of people as good authority but not as a Venetianer or Leonardo.” However, Michailow added “I am sending you one of Marle. I think all theis [sic] pieces should be proof to you that they are original.”⁴ ³

After carefully examining the painting on fine cloth 70.5x56 cm. a painting of Madonna before the Castle, from Leonardo Da Vinci I am convinced that the painting is a rare master piece. The beauty and technic [sic] which the picture shows is a credit to Leonardo, and it is impossible to give the color effect in a photo and also the fine coloring, which could never be shown in a photo picture.

On several spots the picture is not as light as it should be, but never the less it is a mater piece, and it never changed the beauty of the painting.

It is my believe [sic] that this picture was painted by Leonardo during his visit to Mailand. We noticed on the head of the Madonna a similarity to Leonardo’s Teacher Verrochio.

The light and shade in the picture and the scenery is reminding us of the year 1500 in which Mona Lisa returned, and it is my believe [sic] that the painting is taking us back to the year 1490.⁴ ⁴

This final letter suggested that Leipold deposit the money “in a bank in America and you could look after your and my interest, or else it can be paid here, whichever would be more suitable to the buyer.”⁴ ⁵

Was this painting real? Was it ever sold and did Leipold receive his commission? Another letter also seemed to show Leipold was acting in this capacity once again, this one written by Professor Fritz Becker of the State Art Academy in Duesseldorf:

Your letter send [sic] to Photograph Chr. Herort of Wovus dated 24.11.32 was send to me. I have taken your address from the letter head, and I hope you will me in your future dealing in painting.⁴

The question which immediately jumps out is why a shell-shocked landscape contractor would deal in priceless artwork?

Continued Leipold Investigation

Attempting to understand Leipold’s suicide, police visited Dr. J. H. Irvine. Investigators learned that he was connected to St. Luke’s Hospital and worked there with Phyllis Leipold. Dr. Irvine claimed that she brought her husband in to see him for an examination because he had been suffering from “general trouble for the past few months”:

That he could not sleep at nights, that he had no appetite and was losing weight. His condition at the time of this examination was nervous, shaking and having a

slight fever.⁴ ⁷

Phyllis was interviewed again at Nelson’s office, officers learning that her mother-in-law had only two weeks earlier drawn up a will naming her beneficiary. Both women were asked about the possibility of Henry being somehow involved in the Lindbergh case, but neither had any information of value to offer.⁴ ⁸

William Moeller

Landscape architect and contractor William Moeller was also interviewed by police. He explained that Leipold was originally supposed to work with Julius Forstmann, Jr. upon arrival in the United States in 1923, but that Forstmann’s father’s business was failing and couldn’t bring him on. Instead, Moeller employed and taught Leipold the landscaping business. He explained that Leipold quit in 1931, causing him to lose a $15,000 contract. He added that several business transactions occurred between the two men by mail. Concerning Leipold’s suicide, Moeller said that two-and-a-half-weeks prior, Leipold called him and stated he “would pay for everything he had done wrong” but that Moeller told him “not to worry about it” and that, as far as he was concerned, “the matter was forgotten.”⁴ About three days later, Moeller received a call from Giessler, who asked him to speak with Leipold because he was “threatening suicide” over Moeller’s supposed persecution. On the same day, both Giessler and Leipold went to Moeller’s office, where they “talked the things over and agreed to forget the past.” It was only a week later that Moeller was informed by Mr. Giessler that Leipold had killed himself.⁵ Moeller was asked about whether Leipold was ever in any “mix-ups” with any women. His only recollection was something about a “German Actress” associated with Leipold’s friend, Julius Forstmann, Jr., who became pregnant then asked Leipold “to settle the matter for him.” He ed Leipold telling him this actress had a child but couldn’t anything else. As to the reason for Leipold’s suicide, Moeller expressed the opinion it was nothing other than “financial worries.” He had discussed the matter over with “Rudolf Heidkamp” at the funeral and they

both thought it was “queer.” Moeller then “plainly stated that he believed Leipold’s wife drove” him “to his grave.”⁵ ¹

Rudolf Heidkamp

Rudolf Heidkamp was interviewed. He said that he had been good friends with Leipold for over 10 years and spent a lot of time at his home. Although Heidkamp called Leipold a “perfect gentleman” both in public and in private, he believed he was actually a “man of mystery.”⁵ ² All Heidkamp knew of Leipold was that he “traveled all over Europe, spent a lot of money and had a good time.” He further stated that Leipold was the typical “King Fish” who always seemed to have “a big deal” in the works but would never share the details with him and was “always being mysterious.” The latest deal was in the fall of 1932 but, as usual, Heidkamp wasn’t privy to the details. After Leipold’s suicide, he asked Mr. Krieger about it. Krieger seemed to believe it involved a “Dam project” but Heidkamp left it at that “without asking anymore questions.” Heidkamp added that Forstmann and Leipold were “very good friends” and traveled to Munich, London, and Paris together. Leipold had also bragged about frequenting “exclusive night clubs and other high-class places” with Forstmann.⁵ ³ He also recalled that in the spring of 1933, Leipold told him he was going to “buy Chrysler Motor Stocks,” picking up the phone and instructing an executive at the People’s National Bank to “buy $700.00 worth” of stock. Another interesting story that Heidkamp told police was that he had been with Leipold at Maxwell’s Haufbrau in White Plains, having some beer, when Leipold opened a letter from his wife, who was visiting Canada.

[He] became very excited and nervous because his wife told him she was searched upon entering Canada for smuggling diamonds and he stated to Mr. Heidkamp that he knew who caused her to be searched.⁵ ⁴

Finally, Heidkamp added that Leipold had become good friends with “Alfred

Franke” Superintendent of the Hiram Halle estate in Poundridge, Connecticut.

Alfred Franke

Sergeant Zapolsky investigated Franke and learned that he and his wife were scheduled to sail the following week for , on the S. S. Hamburg, third class. Zapolsky secured a photo of Franke.

The above subject’s photograph was taken to Joe Perrone who stated that this man is a very good likeness of the man who gave him the note to be delivered to Dr. Condon and that he would say sixty chances in forty that this is the man, however, this photograph was shown to Dr. Condon who failed to identify it.⁵ ⁵

Condon said that this man in no way resembled either “John” or the “Taxi Driver.”⁵ Police then arranged for Customs agents to search Franke’s luggage on the day of his January 24 departure. State police arrived at the pier to find that all had been searched by Agent Guyfoyle. Franke was also interviewed. It was learned he originally lived in Hackensack after arriving in the United States in 1927 and that he met his wife, who was a maid at the time. They married in 1928. Franke told police he was Leipold’s friend and had met Julius Forstmann on one occasion. Franke also relayed an odd story which he claimed occurred just “prior to Leipold’s suicide”:

Leipold visited his home and accused him of persecuting him, saying that everybody was against him and went away without making any further explanation and about two days later Mrs. Leipold phoned him and told him of the suicide and requested that he would not come to the funeral or send flowers.⁵ ⁷

A sample of Franke’s handwriting was submitted to Captain Snook who examined it and concluded it had “no connection with the handwriting in the Lindbergh ransom notes.”⁵ ⁸

Julius Forstmann Jr.

An investigation into Julius Forstmann, Jr., would seem to be one that police ought to have been especially interested in. They researched everything about him, but on February 8, they only interviewed aic Chief of Police Charles J. Monks about the Forstmann family. Monks told the investigators that Julius Jr. resided with his mother and father in New York City. That “all of the Forstmanns are employed at the Forstmann Silk Company” at 2 Barbour Avenue, and that they were a “millionaire family and people of good local reputation.” Chief Monks added that he believed the “father” controlled a “large portion of the woolen industry in Australia.”⁵ Unfortunately, there is nothing more on this subject in the NJSP files.

The Novelty “Pig” Book

Prior to the Leipold suicide, Keaten and Wilson conducted another interview with the Giesslers. They were seeking more names of those who may have known Mrs. Giessler when she lived at the Plymouth Apartment under her maiden name of Faulkner. She suggested the possibility of Mr. Hayes, the undertaker who buried her mother. It was after this suggestion that she turned over…

… a “Novelty Pig Book” in which all guests arriving at their home to spend an

evening would draw a pig in the book and sign their name under it…⁵¹

The entries in this guest book began in 1909 and extended through 1931, with many names in it. Among them was Harriet Faulkner, Jane Giessler’s sister-inlaw who she had previously mentioned. Another was a fingerprint expert named “P. A. Flah [sic],” who had signed the book on December 15, 1911, and added foreign writing above his name, which caught the attention of investigators. A further example of how serious investigators were about this aspect of the case is that, on discovering a fingerprint on the entry for “Wm. Soutan,” dated October 11, 1911, the print was lifted and sent to Captain Snook of the NJSP’s State Bureau of Identification.

Fingerprint appearing on the attached photostatic copy headed, “PIGS SHOULD BE SEEN AND NOT HEARD” has been checked with certain fingerprints in the Lindbergh case and is not identical with any of these prints.⁵¹¹

P. A. Flak

In August 1933, Treasury Agent Woodward determined that the writing in question was “Arabic,” although he was unable to find anyone who could translate it.⁵¹² Soon Captain Snook was asked to examine the signature and recalled that he knew this man from the “Flak Finger Print System,” and that he was known “throughout the country as a fingerprint expert.” Snook continued that “so far as I have ever known or am able to determine his reputation for integrity and honesty is unquestioned but he is considered to be somewhat eccentric in his business operations.”⁵¹³

Despite several attempts, it wasn’t until early summer that police were able to interview Flak. He arrived at the New York Police Headquarters and told

Lieutenant Finn that he had visited the “Far East” and returned to the United States in 1907. He explained that in “about 1914” he became interested in the “New York Theosophical Society,” ed this small “Sect” and that he “from time to time,” attended meetings “at the home of Jane and Belle Faulkner.”⁵¹⁴ The mention of the Theosophical Society made police sit up and take notice. There had been some who believed the “secret symbol” on the ransom notes was a creation rooted in their beliefs. Corporal Horn wrote:

It’s purpose is to promote the study of Aryan and other Scriptures of the World’s Religions and Sciences, also to investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the Psychic and Spiritual power latent in man especially.⁵¹⁵

Police interviewed the Giesslers once again, to learn the names of all of the group. According to Mrs. Giessler, these meetings were held at 545 West 149th Street, where the Faulkners lived before moving to 537 West 149th Street. She explained that this group included about eight to ten people whose names, except for two, she could not recall. She further added that the group “did not know” that the Faulkners had moved.⁵¹

Every name found in the guest book was searched for a criminal record. Several had hits, with some odd examples. “Mary Belle” was arrested in 1923 for an “unmuzzled dog” and in 1929 for being a “resident of house of prostitution,” although this was later dismissed. “Benjamin Carson” was arrested in 1927 for “bastardy” and “Bert Carson” was arrested in 1918 for “selling whisky to soldiers.” Some charges were a little more serious, like that of “William E. Fleming” who had been arrested for “burglary,”⁵¹⁷ and “Hazel Sage” for “criminally receiving stolen property.”⁵¹⁸

Harriet E. Chapman

When asked who might have used her name on the deposit slip, Mrs. Giessler suspected her former sister-in-law. She told police that Harriet Chapman had married her brother Harry “for money” then later had him “committed to Welfare Island as an Epileptic Victim.”⁵¹ She said later she had her attorney, Lester Nelson, secure his release⁵² in 1917, and Henry died shortly thereafter. Harriet’s whereabouts were currently unknown to the Giesslers, though she had possibly returned to Massachusetts. Lieutenant Keaten next visited Lester Nelson. Nelson explained that he had been Harry Faulkner’s friend since childhood. He told Keaten that Harry had met his wife on Block Island, and, on one occasion, had asked him to help his brother-in-law, Willard Chapman, out of a tight spot for embezzlement. Nelson further explained that sometime after his marriage, Harry had mental difficulty, whether by “work” or “worry.”⁵²¹ He claimed that he had secured Harry’s release despite his wife doing “everything in her power to keep him confined.” Nelson advised Keaten that although he hadn’t been in touch with her since 1917, he believed Harriet Chapman was originally from Worchester, Massachusetts. He still had some letters featuring her handwriting which he gave to Keaten.⁵²² Dr. Souder concluded that her handwriting had “no similarity” to the Lindbergh ransom notes.⁵²³ Souder also informed Agent Wilson that Harriet’s brother Willard’s handwriting “bore no comparison” with the ransom notes or Faulkner deposit slip.⁵²⁴

Payne L. Kretzmer

As mentioned earlier, Payne Kretzmer was the owner of the Plymouth Apartments. He was retired and the former vice president of the “L. C. Schepp Company.” Police interviewed letter carrier Patrick Murray, who first informed investigators that Payne was “insane” and attended to by a male nurse. He added that his brother Richard was “deaf and dumb” and that whole Kretzmer family was “queer.”⁵²⁵ Zapolsky added that Payne was “believed to be harmless, but incapable.”⁵² Further investigation revealed that legal measures were taken to have Payne declared “incompetent,” and that his nephews, John L. Kretzmer and Arthur E. Bremer, were appointed to handle his financial affairs, which resulted in Henry Atkins of the Irving Trust Company taking charge of the Plymouth

Apartments.⁵²⁷ Sergeant Zapolsky interviewed Dr. Henry Williamson, who said that Payne had been in his “present mental state” for about five years and that he is “able to converse quite logically so that anyone not knowing of his mental condition would not see anything wrong.” He added that Payne would sometimes visit his nephew, Arthur Bremer, at his home in Englewood, New Jersey.⁵²⁸

Howard W. Arndt (The Male Nurse)

According to Patrick Murray, Payne Kretzmer’s nurse was a man by the name of Howard Arndt. He added that Arndt was German, about 50 years old, stocky, about 5' 7”, and wore a derby and rimless glasses with a black ribbon. Murray’s assessment was that Arndt was “of the German Military type.”⁵² It was the next day “from further inquiries” that Sergeant Zapolsky learned that Arndt had “a dominating influence over Payne L. Kretzmer.”⁵³ Special Agent Maloney investigated and traced Arndt back to Reading, Pennsylvania. Maloney learned that Arndt had been married twice, first to Miriam Rittenhouse, who he later divorced due to “insane jealousy,” and next to Florence Spencer. He was further described as 5' 6”, stocky, “mighty-well dressed; wears a cap most of the time and makes frequent changes of wearing apparel with an apparent fondness for knickers.”⁵³¹

Visits were made to Kretzmer’s nephews to learn more about Arndt. John Kretzmer told Zapolsky that Arndt was employed on the recommendation of Dr. Thomas Prout of the Fair Oaks Sanatorium at Summit, New Jersey. He said that he believed Arndt a “peculiar person,” who mimicked the manner of a person of wealth. He claimed that Dr. Prout gave him the impression that Arndt was a “moral pervert.”⁵³² He added that Arndt made an “excellent and efficient nurse” and that his uncle also made trips with Arndt to his home in Reading. John Kretzmer believed that his uncle was in “such a mental state that he could have been easily influenced” by anyone “during the spring of 1932.”⁵³³ The next day,

Arthur Bremer was interviewed. He echoed what his cousin said about Arndt, stating he believed him to be of “good character,” but nevertheless objected to him because he was “loud” in both speech and manner of dress. However, Bremer said the reason for declaring his uncle incompetent was because they were “afraid Arndt would get him to sign documents or make a new Will” believing Payne was “completely under the influence of Arndt.” Arndt eventually had a nervous breakdown and left his job. It was claimed that Arndt never left Payne’s side, day or night, and that this might have been the cause of Arndt’s collapse.⁵³⁴ Bremer also informed Zapolsky that the cancelled salary checks issued to Arndt had been cashed at s in Summit Trust Bank, Montclair Trust Company, and Manufacturers Trust Company at the 3515 Broadway branch.⁵³⁵ Sergeant Zapolsky investigated each of these s and found nothing suspicious. Zapolsky also visited Dr. Prout to follow up the information from both nephews. Dr. Prout explained that Arndt had been associated with the Fair Oaks Sanatorium “off and on” for a “period of six years.” He believed him to be a man of “good moral character and excellent ability.” He did add that Arndt could be a “little gruff and officious” at times, which could sometimes make people dislike him. Dr. Prout also stated that the “best” male nurses are “inclined to be somewhat effeminate” and that “characteristic” was “pronounced” in Arndt.⁵³

A little over a month later, Arndt’s first wife was located and interviewed by Special Agent Hill. One would expect that an angry ex-wife might have something negative to say and the former Mrs. Arndt did not disappoint. Miriam Rittenhouse, now Mrs. Wittmer, explained to Agent Hill that she left Arndt due to his “eccentric characteristics.” Arndt had attempted reconciliation but, once rebuffed, had some “kind of attack” and was sent to Bryn Mawr Hospital, which refused treatment stating Arndt was a “mental case.” Mrs. Wittmer claimed Arndt was transferred to Ludlum Sanitarium, where he was “in a padded cell for three weeks.”⁵³⁷ Miriam and Arndt afterwards reconciled, and her two children by a different marriage moved back in with him for about a year, before they separated for good. After the divorce, she learned from her “oldest daughter” (who was nine) that Arndt had “attacked” her during the period they were together. The attack had scared the girl so badly that she was still suffering from the “effects of this attack.” Mrs. Wittmer also said that while the family lived in Verona, New Jersey, Arndt had accused Ray Appleman, a mutual friend, of indiscretions with his wife. According to Mrs. Wittmer, this was an “endeavor to

get some easy money,” and Arndt “brought suit for alienation of affections against Appleman in the amount of $50,000.”⁵³⁸ She also mentioned that a mutual friend, Bill Carter, had repeatedly warned her of Arndt, believing him to be a “dangerous individual.” It was Mrs. Wittmer’s opinion that her ex-husband “would do anything for money and describes him as being a moral pervert and a clever maniac.”⁵³

The Howard Arndt Interview

On June 26, 1934, Sergeant Zapolsky and Corporal Leon interviewed Arndt at his residence, at 27 Linden Place in Summit, New Jersey. Arndt explained that while employed at Fair Oaks Sanitarium, Payne Kretzmer was transferred there from Atlantic City General Hospital on June 10, 1929 and placed on his caseload. On May 23, 1930, Kretzmer was transferred to Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, and Arndt went with him. Sometime that September, Kretzmer returned to Plymouth Apartments, and Arndt stayed on as his nurse. While there…

…they remained living with the patient’s brother, Richard Kretzmer, until June 30, 1932. The patient’s brother’s wife had done their cooking and during their stay at the Plymouth Apartments…⁵⁴

Did Arndt know a Frank Seiler? Despite these same investigators having been assigned to that angle of the investigation, neither thought to inquire. Arndt said that he had taken Kretzmer on some short trips to Pennsylvania, including to Reading and Landisville. On July 9, 1932, Kretzmer went to the New York Neurological Hospital and stayed at Beechwood Hotel in Summit until October 4, 1932, when Arndt claimed he had “a nervous breakdown.”⁵⁴¹ He was then relieved of duty and another nurse named Messick took over. Arndt believed at the time of the interview that Messick was still caring for Kretzmer.⁵⁴² Arndt was asked about the Faulkner family and, while he claimed that all families who

lived at the Plymouth Apartments were reputable, he only ed the Schmaltz family due to the fact their name meant “lard” in German. He added that:

He did not associate with any of the tenants and knew nothing of their business owing to the fact that his patient’s conditions was such that he was not permitted to carry any conversation with the tenants and that he himself could not leave the patient alone long enough to permit himself to listen to any tenant gossip…⁵⁴³

However, he did seem to know all about superintendent Duane Baker, whom he called a “crook, smooth talker and a shrude [sic] article.” He added that he…

…heard consistent remarks from others that Baker had brought into his apartment, through the basement, a number of questionable characters for the purpose of drinking and gambling and from his observation of Baker he formed his opinion that Baker was money crazy.⁵⁴⁴

The men believed Arndt had nothing of value to offer the investigation and they asked for a sample of his handwriting, which he willingly submitted. On July 3, Captain Snook examined this sample and wrote that the handwriting was not connected to the Lindbergh case.⁵⁴⁵

Duane Bacon aka “Baker”

Arndt’s mention of Baker came almost a year after police had started investigating him. The letter carrier, Patrick Murray, had informed investigators that Baker had been borrowing money from numerous tenants while he worked as superintendent but never returned it. He also added that after he left the

Plymouth Apartments that “two young Italians” who “had all the marks of gangsters” came looking for Baker and approached Murray about Baker’s new location.⁵⁴ As investigators questioned occupants of the Plymouth Apartments, they continued to hear similar things about Baker. A dentist named Dr. Thomson was asked who he thought may have “gotten mixed up in the Lindbergh Case” and his response was to name Baker as the only possible candidate.⁵⁴⁷ Police attempted to track down Baker but were always a step behind him. At an Astoria apartment house, they learned Baker lived there for five months without paying rent before vacating. The superintendent told police that Baker said he was employed at “Loew’s Theatre, in Jamaica, L.I..”⁵⁴⁸ A week later, Lieutenant Keaten was informed that Dr. Souder had examined Baker’s handwriting and found that it “bore no resemblance to the Ransom notes or the Deposit Slip.”⁵⁴ However, this news did not deter investigators. In the course of his investigation into the Giessler family, Keaten visited the Hamilton Reformed Church and interviewed Reverend Arthur Mabon. According to Mabon, he had assisted Baker in getting the job as superintendent in late 1931, after Baker came to him pleading poverty. He also loaned Baker money to buy tools for work. However, Baker never repaid the money and Reverend Mabon learned he was borrowing additional sums from the tenants, was creating trouble and ultimately “let go.”

However, the Reverend did not believe that Baker would be the type of man that would be involved in the Lindbergh kidnaping [sic] and murder case, that although Baker was a crook he was more or less a petty crook and would not have the courage to be involved in any way with this investigation.⁵⁵

Investigators went to Loew’s Theater and learned that Baker had been employed there as a porter for about five or six months. Baker was given the job as a “charity” case because he was seen with a “child in his arms” “staggering” and “under-nourished.” On leaving this job, Baker told the theater management that he had been offered a superintendent position in a Bronx apartment building.⁵⁵¹

The Baker Interview

Police located Baker at 3444 Knox Place in the Bronx, where he was employed as superintendent. He told police he had been married twice and that his first wife had died during childbirth. He claimed he was not a carpenter but itted that he was very handy with tools. As it related to Plymouth Apartments, he said he worked there from April to November 1932. Other employment included night watchman at Valencia Theater in Jamaica, which was in the Loew’s chain, but he left in April or May 1933. Baker claimed, after quitting that job, he fell down in the street due to exhaustion, and found his current employment sometime after.⁵⁵² Other jobs included working for “Armour in New York” as a driver and also as a fireman on the “N. Y. Central Tugs.” He claimed he had suffered poor health for over six years, afflicted with arthritis and pleurisy, and that he injured his foot in a manhole about six or seven months prior. Baker gave several names of those he knew while at Plymouth Apartments, which included a sailor and a “big German.” A list of tenants was read to him and he gave his quick impressions of those names mentioned. When asked for names of those who visited him, he stated….

…that the only friends he had visiting him was Superintendent Beck from Riverside Drive who frequently came to his apartment and talked or played cards.⁵⁵³

Police ran down all leads originating from this interview and quickly learned that Baker had not been truthful. Police interviewed Stowe A. Studley, the former superintendent of 568 West 149th Street, and learned Baker had invited him to play cards in his apartment, where he also met a Mr. Beck and another man named Eddie “Shorty” Seery. Studley told police that Baker had the use of a car and would go out riding. He added that Baker was “sick with some ailment and had trouble with one of his feet.” Studley told police that he ended his friendship about “two years ago” after an “argument.”⁵⁵⁴ Police then attempted to interview Mr. Beck, but found his wife instead, who had a great deal to say about Baker. Both she and her husband had visited Baker’s apartment “many times,” claiming that “Shorty Seery,” “Stewart,” and she and her husband played cards there on several occasions.

Mrs. Beck further stated that on one occasion she was walking through the corridor at Baker’s house when she observed Baker step from the Telephone booth in the hall and punch his wife in the jaw, knocking her to the floor.⁵⁵⁵

Mrs. Beck also claimed that Baker often boasted about his brother who lived in Jersey City, who made deals for loads of tires over in the Bronx. Police interviewed the caretaker of 549 West 149th Street, Mrs. Wolf, who ed Baker and told police that he was a troublemaker who often beat his wife and failed to pay rent. Shorty Seery was interviewed and told police that he played cards frequently at Baker’s apartment and knew Beck, Studley, and Stewart. He added that Baker suffered from “arthritis.” Police believed Seery was protecting Baker and was reluctant to say anything negative about him.⁵⁵ Police also interviewed Joe Malysa, who had been a fireman employed at Plymouth Apartments during the time Baker worked there. Malysa said Baker was always borrowing money from people living in and near the building, and still owed him $57.50. He said that Baker was “running a card game and sometimes a crap game in the apartment in the basement.” (When police visited the basement, they saw a card on the “dumb-waiter shaft” which bore the name “Faulkner.” This card was in “full view” and would have been seen by Baker, his friends, and/or other employees.⁵⁵⁷) Malysa also said that Baker claimed his foot injury came from “fighting at the front in .” Police also interviewed Millard Nash, the elevator operator at Plymouth Apartments. He corroborated Malysa, saying that Baker even “induced him to play dice.” He also claimed that Baker would send his wife to New Jersey at various times “then have another woman come into his apartment.” Police went to 4411 Broadway in Astoria and spoke with a Mrs. Thompson. She said that Baker was a tenant there from April through June 1933. Baker had borrowed $30 dollars from her husband and promised to repay $40 from the proceeds of a future tire purchase. She ed Baker injuring his ankle and being laid off. The building owner, Mr. Fuhrman, told police that Baker purposely dropped a “police badge” onto the floor to impress him, and that he had also worked on “traffic signal lights.” Upon moving out, Baker still owed him a month-and-a-half’s rent.⁵⁵⁸ Edward Stewart was interviewed and agreed that he had been in Baker’s apartment many times but never played dice or cards because he was out of work. He said that Baker asked to borrow his car, but he refused, and that while he was always borrowing money from people,

Baker did not get any money from him because he was “Scotch.”⁵⁵

Police were starting to get an overall picture of the man described by Reverend Mabon: A petty low-level hustler type swindler. A photograph of Baker was brought over to Condon’s home and he looked it over “without any results.”⁵ In order to be certain, and on the order of Captain Oliver, Condon was transported to Baker’s home and saw him personally…

…and then and there satisfied himself that Bacon did not resemble the man “John” in any minute detail.⁵ ¹

Knowing what we know now, it seems outrageous for police to have based their investigations on the eyewitness s of John Condon and “expert” handwriting opinions. As shown in V2, Condon was working with the extortionists during the ransom handoff, and the handwriting experts constantly vacillated. Special Agent Leslie conducted a later investigation, to find out if Baker and Henry Ellerson may have known each other through their employment at The Armor and Company, where they both supposedly worked in 1923-24, but company records did not bear this out and no one there at the time of the investigation ed either of them.⁵ ² About a week after Agent Leslie’s report was written, Special Agent Turrou recorded this information in a report he authored:

With regard to Duane Bacon, a former superintendent at 537 West 149th Street, Lieutenant Keaton [sic] advised that in view of Bacon’s past criminal record a very intensive investigation had been conducted by the combined agencies of the New York Police Department, New Jersey State Police and Frank Wilson of the Treasury Department and it was found that Bacon was in no way connected with the instant case. Lieutenant Keaton [sic] added that as far as he is concerned, Bacon has been wholly absolved as a possible suspect in this case.⁵ ³

Ruth (Lohse) Griffen

During the course of their investigation, police learned that a Griffen family had once resided at the Plymouth Apartments. What police found interesting was that Ruth Griffen had left her husband William and relocated to City Island. The possible connection here was obvious.⁵ ⁴ Sergeant Zapolsky learned that Ruth Griffen had resumed using her maiden name after the move and that her grandmother had ties to “Real Estate Business.” Police also learned that Griffen’s estranged husband had moved out of the Plymouth Apartments sometime in January 1933. Further investigation revealed that Ruth had moved from City Island back to New York City. By speaking with the mail carriers, it was confirmed that her grandmother, Ophelia Veil, was very wealthy and “of good repute.”⁵ ⁵ This, coupled with the fact that it was learned the Griffens had moved in after the Faulkners moved out, seemed reason enough for the NJSP to abandon this angle of the investigation.

William L. Griffen

In July 1934, Agent Turrou (as further proof the FBI wasn’t “in the loop” and operated independently at times) tracked down and interviewed William L. Griffen. He explained that he was a “widower with two grown children,” stating that he rented at Plymouth Apartments for $85.00 per month and lived there with his daughter until sometime in December 1932. Griffen stated that he did not mingle with the other tenants and only knew the Superintendent “Bacon” and his replacement Eugene Beaver. Griffen said that while Beaver was “a good man,” Bacon was a “cheat and a liar; that his conduct in the building appeared to all tenants to be reprehensible.”⁵ Although Turrou concluded that Griffen could give “nothing of value,” he did write this in his report:

It may be stated that Apartment 64 at 537 West 149th Street, which Mr. Griffen occupied from 1930 to 1932, was the same apartment in which Jane E. Faulkner,

above referred to, lived for several years.⁵ ⁷

John J. Faulkner

One of the earliest possible connections the police found concerning the Faulkner deposit slip was written by Lieutenant Keaten here:

Upon arriving at the Alpine Station and checking over our list of pupils who went to school under Dr. Condon, the name of J. Faulkner was found on that list. I took a note of this and upon my arrival at Trenton on Saturday morning, this name will be checked against our list there so that the address of this J. Faulkner may be obtained.⁵ ⁸

Sgt. Zapolsky investigated this man, learning that he was born on “February 5, 1900 and went to school under Dr. Condon at Public School #12” in the Bronx. This led Zapolsky to 1336 Balcom Avenue and was able to that the Faulkners had lived there and were still receiving mail. Zapolsky noted:

Balcom Avenue where this house is situated, intersects with Whittemore Avenue, approximately one half a block below where the Lindbergh Ransom money was ed to the kidnappers.⁵

In the meantime, Lieutenant Keaten went to NYPD Headquarters to discuss this new development with Detective John Brennan. Keaten informed him that they had “found a John J. Faulkner” who had been a pupil under Dr. Condon and that he had been committed to the “Catholic Protectory in 1914” “on complaint of his mother Isabel” because he had “burglarized her home.” A meeting between Keaten, Inspector Lyons, Lieutenant Finn, and Agent Wilson was held, in which

it was agreed that Detective Brennan would conduct an interview with Faulkner because he was “from the same neighborhood.”⁵⁷ Sergeant Zapolsky secured the Post Office’s cooperation by having them cover all mail to 1336 Balcom Avenue and forwarding all tracings to investigators.⁵⁷¹ On May 10, Lieutenant Keaten once again met with Lyons, Brennan, Finn, and Wilson. Brennan informed him that…

…J. J. Faulkner listed as a school pupil of Dr. Condon’s was now employed by the City of New York as a Police Officer by the New York Department. The Inspector also stated that he was going to interview Officer Faulkner to see what information he could obtain from him in reference to anyone who might use his name or any of his associates…⁵⁷²

Shortly after this meeting, Inspector Lyons interviewed Officer Faulkner and concluded that he was not involved and had nothing to offer to the investigation. However, Lieutenant Keaten decided to interview Officer Faulkner again. Faulkner itted he had been Dr. Condon’s student and that he was once committed to the Catholic Boys Home, but could give no information about who might use his name in connection to the Faulkner deposit slip. The lack of any other documentation to show further NJSP investigation into this man seems to indicate it had concluded, but there is a curious revelation in one of Agent Sisk’s memorandums:

Lieutenant Keaton [sic] and Captain Lamb confidentially informed the writer that there was a New York policeman named J. J. Faulkner who lives near Woodlawn [sic] Cemetery, concerning whom they are suspicious; that they did not want to work this angle with the New York Police as they are afraid of the man being tipped off; that they would like to have the cooperation of the Division as to the investigation.⁵⁷³

It’s hard to know whether this information imparted to Sisk from Keaten and Lamb was true. While it came on the heels of yet another “reconciliation”

between the two organizations, Keaten was known to omit, fabricate, and mislead both the FBI and NYPD where he believed it benefitted the NJSP.⁵⁷⁴ One thing that does seem to it, however, was Sisk’s mention in another memorandum that Lieutenant Finn was aware of their suspicions. “Apparently therefore it is no secret to him, although the State Police seem to think he knew nothing about it.”⁵⁷⁵ Sisk also wrote that he intended to make a separate report on this subject, although I’ve never found one to consult. My next encounter with the subject came from Governor Hoffman’s re-investigation. Hoffman’s investigators were looking over the possibilities as it concerned this man, but nothing was ever developed.⁵⁷

Just as Dr. Gardner noted in The Case That Never Dies, no one thought to ask Condon about this coincidence. Gardner further notes that in Jafsie Tells All!:

Condon remarks that he believed that Cemetery John went to a house nearby to obtain the “receipt” he had demanded, and that he had even told reporters that he recognized the handwriting as that of one of his pupils.⁵⁷⁷

Once again, knowing what we do now about Condon, as outlined in V2, none of this is much of a mystery anymore.

FBI vs. NJSP

Of course, I indicated, in further conversation, that we would always have trouble in cases of this kind where we had to work with other agencies; that the average police officer was extremely jealous and was concerned with publicity only; that many police organizations would rather have a case unsolved than have it solved by an organization other than their own. The Colonel [Schwarzkopf] agreed with me. I then stated that we were accustomed to being

unpopular, in fact were rather proud of it.⁵⁷⁸

On June 30, 1934, Special Agent Sisk was informed that the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip had been “examined for latent fingerprints” but that “no fingerprints of value could be developed thereon.” The original slip was then mailed back to Special Agent Sisk in New York.⁵⁷ This sounds like good investigative work which would, or should, have been embraced by all. But once the NJSP learned about the FBI being in possession of this slip, they were outraged and protested.⁵⁸ It is just another example of infighting among the various law enforcement agencies which occurred during the 2½ year investigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping.

This episode began when FBI head J. Edgar Hoover “quite accidentally” learned “that a certain portion of the ransom money” had been discovered.⁵⁸¹ The information, while in the hands of the NJSP, had never officially been communicated to the FBI. Of course, Hoover wasn’t happy about this because, after the child’s body was discovered, President Hoover directed the FBI to be the “clearing house and ” for all information on the case, that all collaboration made by any federal agency was to be cleared through them, and any and all information they received “from any source whatsoever” was to be shared with the FBI.⁵⁸² It was not only clear that the NJSP was non-cooperative with the FBI, but neither was the Treasury Department consistently following the presidential directive. And so, as with the deposit slip, Hoover was surprised to learn that “no effort was made by the agencies investigating the case at that time” to have this evidence “examined for fingerprints.”⁵⁸³ The salt in the wound came once the FBI’s criminology lab chief E. P. Coffey expressed his opinion that had the deposit ticket been examined “within twenty-four hours of the time it was discovered” there would have been a “good possibility of obtaining latent fingerprints.” But it did not end with the deposit slip. Certain blocks of ransom money (which included the $2,980 Faulkner deposit) were also sent to the FBI for examination by SAC Hugh McQuillan of the Treasury Department.⁵⁸⁴ Once Schwarzkopf learned about this he became “incensed.” Hoover wrote:

This attitude, of course, is somewhat silly when one considers that this ransom money had been held in the Federal Reserve Bank at New York for approximately a year, and that no action had been taken by the New Jersey State authorities to examine it in any chemical laboratory, but as soon as we had taken this action the New Jersey authorities then indicated that they had proposed to do the same thing, and made further objection to the fact that we had removed some of the physical evidence in the case.⁵⁸⁵

During the entire endeavor, the NYPD was aware of the FBI’s efforts, Lieutenant Finn who assisting in the arrangements and expressing the opinion that the “scientific examination of the money was a good idea” and “should have been done” with this batch immediately.⁵⁸ Hoover wrote:

I am convinced that the present agitation of Colonel Schwarzkopf is due to that fact that he is quite fearful that the Division of Investigation may solve the Lindbergh case without his knowledge and participation.⁵⁸⁷

To make matters worse, Schwarzkopf approached “various persons who have been cooperating with” the FBI and told them to “demand that a representative of the” NJSP “be present” when ed. Hoover further wrote:

Our Agents have done everything in their power to cooperate with the New Jersey State Police, but without any success, because of this jealous and narrow attitude upon the part of the officials of the New Jersey State Police.⁵⁸⁸

Hoover continued to complain to AG Cummings by explaining that the NJSP even expanded their “insidious” efforts, attempting to smear the FBI by ing local law enforcement throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania with false and misleading information. According to Hoover, this was done to “implant the impression” that the FBI was seeking full credit for all

kidnapping and extortion cases without giving “proper credit” to local authorities.

They have not made any substantial headway in this campaign because the facts are opposed to their contention. However, it reflects the attitude of Colonel Schwarzkopf and his associates.⁵⁸

Loose Ends

Police never truly gave up on the Homer A. Boushey angle, despite what they learned from Dr. Souder about the handwriting, Condon’s refusal to identify him as Cemetery John, and Joe Perrone failing to identify his photograph.⁵ They knew Boushey had criminal tendencies, had an axe to grind with Mrs. Giessler, and verified that he was in New York City until April 3, 1932.⁵ ¹ From New York, the FBI was able to pick up on his trail of unpaid bills from Kelly Field, Texas, to Hollywood, California, always seeming to be just one step behind him.⁵ ² The FBI’s San Francisco division attempted to find him for an interview but failed to locate him.⁵ ³ About a week later, Special Agent Seery learned that Boushey had shown up at the Marcus Loew Booking Agency and borrowed $5 so that he could his family who was “driving from California to Washington, D. C.” because he “had a promise of a government position” there.⁵ ⁴ While it seems rather unlikely that Boushey wasn’t located, I have never found anything to he ever was.

After the NJSP and FBI reconciled over the Faulkner angle, this was one thing they continued to work together on until Hauptmann’s arrest. And since Boushey had left the area, the FBI’s resources were needed for this purpose.⁵ ⁵ Also, even after Hauptmann’s arrest, police were still entertaining information and were attempting to learn what they could about Henry Leipold. Police continued to follow up with his friend and lawyer Krieger, who was himself still making attempts to learn more about Leipold’s associates.⁵ By January 1936, further

information came in from the New York State Police concerning their investigation of Leipold. But this investigation promptly ended once NYSP Lieutenant Hagerman was convinced by Inspector Lyons of the NYPD that “there was no connection between the late Leipold and the Lindbergh case.”⁵ ⁷

5 The Wood Evidence

The Ladder

Although, as shown in V2, he never wavered in his belief that Hauptmann built the kidnap ladder and was involved in the crime, wood expert Arthur Koehler was noncommittal concerning Hauptmann’s specific role in the Lindbergh kidnapping. It also seemed clear to him that, whatever Hauptmann’s part was, others were involved.⁵ ⁸ This was Koehler’s immediate reaction after visiting the crime scene:

The Lindbergh home was first visited to see if wood of the same kind and dimensions as used in the ladder had been used in the construction of the buildings. Since the kidnapper appeared to have been sufficiently familiar with the plan of the Lindbergh home to know where the nursery was located, the possibility that some of the workmen or others living in the vicinity might have taken lumber for the ladder from the premises and committed the crime was not to be overlooked.⁵

Something else Koehler never wavered about:

Hauptmann was a poor carpenter. If he had been more skillful in his woodworking, he might have been acquitted.

Rails 12 & 13

I think it’s appropriate to begin this section with the words of Dr. David A. Kribs, who held a Ph.D. in “wood technology” with studies at Minnesota, Yale, Harvard, and Penn State:

I have followed with interest the facts brought out concerning the wood technology phase of the Hauptmann investigation. After reading Koehler’s article in the April 20, 1935 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, serious doubts arose in my mind concerning certain statements relative to planer marks traced to a southern mill and back to a Bronx lumber yard. This I believe is an impossibility. ¹

What Kribs referred to above was one of the monumental successes of Koehler’s ladder examinations and investigations — that was tracing both rails 12 and 13 of the kidnap ladder found at Highfields. There’s only one problem: Koehler never actually did this. Nevertheless, his investigation was an impressive attempt at ascertaining where these rails originated. He first attempted to locate the mill and trace their shipments to the yard, which would hopefully lead to the individual who made the purchase. Much has been written on this topic over the years and while it can be dry, the subject is extremely important. With this in mind, I will not re-hash what’s been recounted elsewhere unless necessary. I will also reveal new and supplemental information on this subject to show what really happened as opposed to what history falsely records.

Here is Koehler’s Flemington testimony, concerning rails 12 and 13:

Q. Prior to September 1934 and before the day that Hauptmann was arrested had you ascertained where some of the lumber came from?

A. Yes.

Q. What date was it? A. November 29th, 1933.

Q. Now in November, 1933, did you determine where some of the lumber that made up this ladder came from? A. Yes.

Q. Where did it come from? A. From the National Lumber & Millwork Company in the Bronx.

Q. Did you go to the National Lumber and Millwork Company in the Bronx in 1933? A. Yes.

Q. Why did you go to this company in 1933? A. I traced some of the lumber in the ladder to the planing mill that dressed it and from the planing mill to the National Lumber & Millwork Company.

Q. All right. Now will you tell us how you traced it? A. I traced it by means of the planer marks made on the lumber when it was planed at the planing mill. ²

The Investigation Begins

Because of his study of the “kidnap” ladder, Koehler determined that rails 12 and 13 were dressed on a planer having “8 knives in the top and bottom heads” and “6 in the sides heads.” ³ Koehler also noticed a defect on the edge of one side on both rails. Koehler and Schwarzkopf began a letter writing campaign in an attempt to discover which companies may have built planers to match these heads, as well as other specifications. The S. A. Woods Machine Company responded that they built machines that could produce the work. ⁴ Another company to respond favorably was the Yates-American Machine Company. ⁵ E.S. Adkins & Company replied that they only produced machines with six knives on the top and bottom heads. Sometime in mid-April, Detective Bornmann visited the Product Machinery Sales Corporation in New York City. This company sold woodworking machinery from various companies throughout the country, including from S. A. Woods. Company president H. A. Perkins, an expert in planing, sawmills, and woodworking machinery was later transported to NJSP Headquarters to examine rails 12 and 13. ⁷ Perkins wrote a preliminary report on April 25, following this up with an amended and very detailed report two days later. One observation included in his report was the following:

I still think that the two edges of the rails No. 12 and No. 13 were worked with different types of sideheads, the good edge with a 6-knife round head with six ted cutters, and the poorly worked edge with a 4-knife head (presumably a square head) with only two cutters working or intended to work. ⁸

Upon learning about this report, Koehler wrote to Captain Lamb:

In reply to your letter of May 2 I will say that the revolution marks are distinctly visible on both edges, but the individual knife marks (6 per revolution mark) are

definitely visible only on the smoother edge. Therefore, I cannot be sure that there were 6 knives in the head that dressed the rough edge, but I assumed that to be the case, although I suppose it is not necessarily so.

In June, Koehler sent a piece of 1 x 4-inch North Carolina pine to YatesAmerican so they could examine certain “defect marks” on its edge. This company had its “engineers” examine it. Among their observations:

It appears to us that the cut on the top side of this board was made with a 6-knife instead of 8-knife as you had been figuring on heretofore. It is not quite distinct as to whether 6 or 8-knife head was used but we are inclined to think it was made with a 6-knife head. As stated to you before, most of the mills in the south use 6-knife top and bottom heads, and few 8-knife heads. ¹

Strangely, Koehler found this reply encouraging and wrote to Captain Lamb:

I am interested in their statement that there are few machines in use with 8 knife top and bottom heads, such as I feel certain was used in dressing rails 12 and 13. Now, those “few” machines would not all have the same ratio of speed of top and bottom heads to side heads, namely .937/.86 (These figures represent the distance the lumber traveled per revolution of the horizontal and vertical heads, respectively.) ¹¹

We see here a disagreement between Koehler and the engineers from a company who manufactured the planers used at the mills. This difference did not alter Koehler’s belief, and due to the information about the eight knife heads being rare, he felt the odds were better in finding the mill by continued pursuit along the same lines.

Earlier, Koehler requested lists of all mills to whom both S. A. Woods Machine Company and Yates-American Machine Company sold machines with the 8knife planer and matcher. He wrote to all mills, firms, and lumber companies on the lists sent to him describing “the peculiar defect in the planing of one edge.” The letters also requested samples dressed on their “planer having 8 knives,” suggesting the “longer ago it was dressed the better.” But by late August only eight replies came in. ¹² Among them was one from M. G. and J. J. Dorn and, as if by magic, one piece of lumber they sent was, according to Koehler, “apparently identical with those on the N.C. pine rails.” Koehler also added that “one of the edges of the stock from Dorn shows defects in the planing similar to but not so pronounced as those on one edge of rails 12 and 13, although they have the same spacing.” ¹³ Koehler requested and received more samples. After examining them he wrote:

Where these show the planer marks clearly they show practically exactly the same spacing as those on rails 12 and 13, both for revolution marks and individual knife cuts. They do not show the peculiar planer markings as on one edge just like they are on rails 12 and 13, but they do show faint uniform intermittent marks of the same spacing as on the rails, which may or may not be due to being made by the same machine – I cannot tell. ¹⁴

By October, Koehler was planning a trip east, to visit various firms but was holding out hope that as more replies trickled in that…

…as it will take some time before I get the replies, I do not intend to leave for the East until October 21. Possibly by that time some other place than McCormick, South Carolina, will look even more promising. ¹⁵

After delaying his trip once more, Koehler wrote Schwarzkopf, complaining that he was baffled by the lack of replies from the various firms he had ed, but explained this by suggesting that they probably did not think it necessary to reply for reasons that would have, in essence, disqualified them. In any event,

Koehler believed Dorn “still is the only firm that I found which produces planer marks like those on rails 12 and 13.”

One of the pieces which the Dorn Co. sent me, as I stated before, also shows a defect in the planing of one edge somewhat like although not identical with that on one of the edges in rails 12 and 13. The next move it seems to me should be to find out if the Dorn Co. did produce that defect in planing one of the edges of the rails, thereby tying it down definitely to them if possible. ¹

On either October 31 or November 1, Detective Bornmann sawed rail 12 in half and mailed it to Koehler for comparison during his trip to Dorn. ¹⁷ On November 7, Koehler arrived in South Carolina and visited Dorn Co., showing the part of rail 12 section to J. J. Dorn, who “remarked that the planing looked like their work.” ¹⁸

I then pointed out to him the shallow intermittent grooves on one edge, but neither he nor the planer foreman could for it specifically. They stated that it might be due to part of the edge of one knife being turned up. It was not due to any other projection on the cutter head, and if it was due to a defect in the knife it must have been of a temporary nature since knives are resharpened every day or two. ¹

Koehler desperately searched for the peculiar planer defect by combing through old piles of lumber and various scrap pieces. He “found several that remotely resembled it but nothing exactly like it.” But Koehler was able to determine the width of the planer marks dressed at Dorn as being the same as on rails 12 and 13. This, it was claimed, was due to a “special pulley” which Dorn used on their machine for dressing 1 x 4” stock. Since that pulley was purchased in August 1929, Koehler requested a “complete list of shipments” made from that time to March 1, 1932. ² On November 9, Schwarzkopf began writing letters to the various places on the list provided by Dorn concerning these shipments. In them he wrote:

It is definitely established that the lumber was dressed by the M. G. & J. J. Dorn Company, McCormick, South Carolina. ²¹

While it hadn’t been “definitely established,” it was all they had. Virtually all shipments were traced due to the replies. One reply to these requests came from Hallowell & Souder, wholesale lumber merchants. Among the destinations, “Shipment #2. NYC 245861” went to Updike-Kennedy Company in Trenton, New Jersey, with “Shipment #4. C&WC 8612” sent to S. L. Gottlieb, Inc. in Manville, New Jersey. ²² Another reply came from Halligan & McLellan, a wholesale lumber company. They listed eight shipments and the locations of their ultimate consignee. One car, “CWS 8671,” went to the National Lumber and Millwork Company on White Plains Avenue in the Bronx on November 24, 1931, another to Queens County Lumber Company in Ozone Park, Long Island, in car “CWS 8672,” on December 3, 1931. ²³

The National Lumber & Millwork Company

Koehler and Bornmann visited the National Lumber and Millwork Company on November 16. It was determined that on November 24, 1931, a shipment containing 2,263 ft. of #2 Common (D4S) was received, dressed by Dorn Co. ²⁴ Koehler and Bornmann were informed that a carload of lumber only lasted about three to five months and that this shipment could have been dispersed to “any of 500 customers who bought in small lots.” As such, National felt certain there wasn’t any more of this shipment on hand at the time of Koehler and Bornmann’s visit. ²⁵

On November 27, Koehler and Bornmann arrived at the Queens County Lumber Company, to investigate the carload of 19,576 board feet of 1 x 4” North Carolina pine shipped from Dorn. They were able to find some leftover pieces

which “were used in the construction of bins for storage.”

A sample of this lumber showed the interrupted shallow groove on one edge as on the ladder only it was slightly nearer the middle and the grooves were 0.96 inches apart instead of 0.86 as in the ladder. On the faces the revolution marks were 1.07 inches apart instead of 0.93 as on the ladder rails #12 and 13. ²

Back at his hotel, Koehler wrote a letter to his wife proclaiming that he had “found the lumber yard that handled the particular shipment of lumber from which part of the ladder was made.” ²⁷ His euphoria would be short lived. Koehler and Bornmann returned the next day to find that additional pieces showed the exact same groove. Koehler rethought his scenario and wrote in his report that…

…it indicates that a large part of the shipment was dressed with the fast feed, possibly all of it, in which case the previous shipment made on November 24th to the National Lumber Company, 3541 White Plains Ave., might show the defect in the planing of one edge and slower feed in planing. ²⁸

On November 29, Koehler and Bornmann returned to National and were once again told that none of the lumber from Dorn remained at the yard. This did not deter them, and they asked for permission to look around, searching all stock of 1 x 4”. They next examined the lumber used in construction of their coal bin, and finally looked over the lumber used in construction of some bins for molding. An employee cut off a piece for them.

One glance showed that the defect we were looking for was present on the edge and that the stock had been dressed at the same speed as the pine ladder rails #12 and 13. Comparison later with a piece of one of the rails showed the planer marks to be practical [sic] identical.

The sample from the bin also showed a defect in the planing of one of the face which also was found to be present on the rail. There, however, was another defect in one of the knives that dressed the same face which did not show on the ladder rail. Therefore, the ladder rail must have been dressed before this piece from the bin and could not have come from the subsequent shipment of 1 x 4” stock shipped 10 days later to the Queens County Lumber Company, Queens, even if some of it had been dressed at the same speed, although the relatively few pieces that we saw were all dressed at a faster rate. This conclusion is made because defects in knives do not disappear as more lumber is dressed, and if the face knives had been sharpened the other defect in one of the face knives would also have been ground out. ²

This report clearly indicates that what Koehler testified to in Flemington was not true. In April, while Koehler was in his lab in Madison, Wisconsin, he wrote Captain Lamb, requesting the piece of rail 13 be mailed to him so he could compare it to the pieces from National and fully document the comparisons. ³ In late May, Koehler wrote a letter to J. J. Dorn with clear uncertainty:

Do your records show in any way whether you had any 1 x 4 left over after dressing the stock for CWC Car 8671 which went to Williamsbridge, New York, on November 24, 1931 and which you would have placed in CWC Car 8672 which went to Ozone Park, Long Island, on December 3, 1931? Undoubtedly the lumber we are trying to trace was dressed at the same time that you dressed the lumber for Williamsbridge since the same planing defects show up on one edge and one face of the lumber we are trying to trace and of the lumber you sent to Williamsbridge. It would be important for us to know whether any of the 1 x 4 lumber dressed for the Williamsbridge car could have gone to Ozone Park. ³¹

A question like this would never be posed if, on November 29, 1933, this lumber had already been traced, as Koehler’s sworn testimony indicated. To further the fact that he testified untruthfully, there was something else Koehler mentioned in a letter to Captain Lamb on June 13, 1934. Although he wrote “an

objection to the theory that the rungs came from Newport is that the N. C. pine rails of the bottom section came from New York City without question and it is difficult to see how they would have gotten combined in one ladder,” he added:

The shipment to the Triangle Lumber Company, Elmont, L. I. (freight station at Queens Village, L. I.) is interesting in that Elmont is only about 8 miles from Ozone Park, where the Queens County Lumber Company received the next shipment of 1 x 4 National Lumber and Millwork Company in the Bronx.

The N. C. pine rails, Nos. 12 and 13, might after all have come from the Queens County Lumber Company because the Dorn Company at McCormick had informed me previously that they sometimes dress more stock of a certain size than they can get into a car, and they then hold over the surplus in a shed until they get another order for the same size. I wrote to them recently asking if their records showed whether they held over any 1 x 4 after dressing the car for the Bronx, but they replied that their records do not show anything one way or the other. However, their records do show that the 1 x 4 sent to the Bronx was dressed after other stock that was loaded in that car, which makes it more probable that some 1 x 4 might have been left over than if it had been dressed first. I raised an objection to that in my report because the sample that we collected at the National Lumber and Millwork Company has a planer defect on it that does not occur on the rails which means that the rails were dressed before that sample. It might be possible that both were dressed toward the very last and the lumber used in the ladder went to the Queens County Lumber Company, Ozone Park, L. I., although it is not very probable.

On the other hand, the Triangle Lumber Company may have sold some of the 1 x 6 ponderosa pine in the Bronx since the Queens County Lumber Company sold some of the cheaper 1 x 4 N. C. pine in the Bronx, and I understand a good deal of lumber is sent across the East River from Long Island to Manhattan or the Bronx. ³²

What do we see here? That there was a defect on corresponding edges of rails 12 and 13, as well as a defect on the rail faces, not previously mentioned–and a third defect on the wood samples from National which was not on rails 12 and 13. About a week after Koehler’s June 13 letter, all ladder pieces in Koehler’s possession, including the half of the lower rail used to document the planer marks and defects, were shipped back to NJSP headquarters via ed mail. ³³

After Hauptmann’s Arrest

After Hauptmann was arrested, his initial interrogation revealed that he had been employed by “the National Lumber Company” at the yard “near Gun Hill Road.” ³⁴ Hauptmann told police:

I got little contracts from them. That is a lumber yard. I used to buy my lumber over there until I got acquainted and I got little contracts with lumber or other little contracts coming in. ³⁵

On September 20, 1934, Police Commissioner John O’Ryan, along with Colonel Schwarzkopf and J. Edgar Hoover announced Hauptmann’s capture. According to the Associated Press article:

Detectives have established, further, the Commissioner said, that Hauptmann had access to a lumber yard in the neighborhood where timber was found bearing the same trade mark as the lumber used to make the ladder—up which the kidnapper climbed about 10 o’clock the night of March 1,1932. ³

The next day, Schwarzkopf, New Jersey Governor Moore, New Jersey Attorney

General David Wilentz, Hunterdon County Prosecutor Hauck, and Mercer County Prosecutor Marshall held a press conference in Sea Girt. Schwarzkopf again told the press that “Hauptmann worked in the lumber yard doing odd jobs” and that it was the same yard “that the lumber used in the ladder had been traced” because of “peculiar markings.” He went further in identifying that yard as either “National Lumber Yard or the National Lumber Company.” ³⁷

Since all reports, letters, and other documentation prove the wood from the kidnap ladder was never conclusively traced, I suspect if Hauptmann had itted to working at, say, the Queens County Lumber Company, Schwarzkopf would have made an identical statement. Despite this, excited that a German carpenter from the Bronx had been arrested and armed with this new bit of information, Koehler was now ready to conclusively state that he had indeed traced the lumber used for rails 12 and 13 from Dorn to National. One could argue, based upon the revelation that Hauptmann had been employed at National, that this was a key puzzle piece which, once in place, retroactively convinced Koehler that wood could now be traced. But how could he ignore the logic which prevented this very conclusion prior to Hauptmann’s arrest? The answer is that he couldn’t. He simply ignored the facts which prevented him from doing so earlier.

Police pursued this angle further. One such investigation led them directly to the National Millwork and Lumber Company at their White Plains Avenue location. There, police interviewed David Hirsch, the company’s secretary. Hirsch informed Sergeant Zapolsky that he knew Hauptmann, who had been employed “for approximately 15” small “jobs” from “October 28, 1931” to “March 10, 1932” his last day of work for them. ³⁸ Because the shipment of lumber in question was dated November 24, 1931, these dates couldn’t have been better for police anxious to tie Hauptmann to the kidnapping. On November 9, 1934, Koehler wrote J. J. Dorn for some additional information. He needed to know “how many cars were shipped of lumber… between November 13th and November 24th,” to demonstrate that “the knives were sharpened several times between those dates.” ³ He also needed to know “how many carloads of stock” could be dressed “before resharpening the top and bottom knives.” ⁴ However, before he received a reply, on November 15, 1934, Koehler went over his

Flemington testimony with Assistant AG Robert Peacock, in which he would claim he had successfully traced the lumber for rails 12 and 13 to National, not in September 1934, but on November 29, 1933.

J. J. Dorn

On November 16, while still waiting for a reply to his letter of the 9th, Koehler wrote Dorn again to advise him that he would be called as a witness for the State of New Jersey. Dorn was told it would be “necessary” for him to testify…

…about these shipments of lumber and the special pulley. You probably will also be asked how often it is necessary to sharpen the top and bottom and side knives, to show that the knives must have been ground after the previous shipment and before the next shipment of 1 x 4 were sent out. ⁴¹

This ignores two things. The first is Koehler’s own letter to Captain Lamb on May 28, 1934, discussing the possibility of surplus and what was done with it. The next is that Koehler, at this point, did not know what Dorn’s testimony would be concerning the knife sharpening. On November 20, Dorn finally responded to Koehler’s questions:

We shipped a total of 22 carloads of lumber between Nov. 13th and Nov. 24th. Included in the 22 cars were 8 cars containing stock D4S. We can dress from 10 to 12 cars of good clean lumber before resharpening the top and bottom knives, and from 4 to 5 cars when we strike gritty and blue lumber, provided we do not hit a nail or brake [sic] a blade, in which case we probably would not dress but one car. ⁴²

This answer was not what Koehler expected. In his earlier letter, he wrote:

You already told me that you shipped 8 carloads between November 24th and December 3rd at which date the next shipment of 1 x 4” was made, which means that the knives in the top and bottom cylinders also were sharpened during that period. ⁴³

Given what Dorn wrote, in theory, simply because those eight carloads were shipped, it does not necessarily follow that the knives in the top and bottom cylinders were sharpened during that period. As to the side heads, Dorn wrote:

Since talking to our planer man I find that we can dress from 25 to 30 cars of good clean lumber before having to resharpen the side heads when dressing stock worked 4 sides. ⁴⁴

Clearly, Koehler had been wildly off-base when he wrote Dorn earlier that “you already told me that you can dress 3 or 4 carloads before resharpening the side heads…” ⁴⁵ On December 21, 1934 Koehler once again wrote Dorn, describing what he’d testify to “if true.” I find his last point the most important:

What other shipments did you make between November 13th and December 3rd? The purpose of this question is to show that enough lumber was shipped between those dates and November 24th so that the top and bottom knives at lease [sic] would have been sharpened and that the 1 x 4’s showing the same knife defects as that sent to Williamsbridge on November 24th, could not possibly have been sent in the previous or subsequent shipments. You should bring along your complete records of shipments for Fall of 1931 so that we can discuss the matter. ⁴

Once again, if what Koehler wrote to Lamb on May 28 was true, and what Dorn wrote to him on November 20 was true, and what Koehler wrote in his November 29, 1933, report was also true, concerning an additional defect not represented on the rails 12 and 13, then no one could truthfully testify to the above.

Pre-Trial

Koehler was not alone when he returned to the east coast from Madison after Thanksgiving. With him was a colleague Edward Manning Davis. Davis was a “wood technologist” and his “expertise was in wood defects, grading of softwoods and machining of hardwoods.” ⁴⁷ From December 5 through December 21, the two spent every minute working together on the wood aspect of the Lindbergh case. Between December 5 and December 18, they checked Koehler’s conclusions by re-examining the ladder thoroughly. Both men agreed that “the samples” from National agreed with rails 12 and 13, concerning the “number of knives in planer that dressed” them. ⁴⁸ They also concluded that the “rate of feed of the planer per revolution of cutterheads” agreed with both. They added:

Agreement between these rails and the sample as to the identity of the peculiar machinery defect. ⁴

On December 19, Koehler and Davis went back to National and secured…

…six more samples of the 1 x 4” N. C. pine showing the same machinery defect as in rails No. 12 and 13 and in the first sample obtained there. Lawrence Miller, foreman got these samples. The 1 x 4” pine formed the bottoms of bins used for mouldings and the samples obtained were broken or sawed off at the back end of

the bins. ⁵

What strikes me as odd is the term “defect,” used in the singular. We know there were three separate and distinct defects located on the original sample Koehler found on November 29, 1933. After Hauptmann’s arrest, Koehler omitted the defect that was not present on rails 12 and 13, but here appears to omit the second defect on the rail face. Koehler and Davis returned to Madison on December 21 for Christmas, but much of their time was spent in Koehler’s lab preparing for the trial. A document was created for Wilentz which specifically mentioned that, after Davis’s personal study of the ladder, he was “prepared to Koehler’s testimony” which included:

Identity of machining defects and of knife marks on rails 12 and 13 with those on Bronx yard samples. ⁵¹

We will never know whether a signed copy exists, but this appears to show Davis was on board with including the defect on the face as well. But what was his position on the third defect? I have been unable to find anything which could lead to an answer. Around this same time, Koehler typed up a mock Q & A, which he would rehearse and use to assist the prosecution. Some of what he wrote shows how he intended to get around the actual facts of his investigation. One example:

It so happens that the two rails of the bottom section of the ladder show slight defects in the planing of one edge and one side due to an imperfection in one of the knives that dressed one edge and in one of the knives that dressed one side. Knowing that knives in planers must be sharpened every now and then, I knew that defect in the planing would appear on only a limited amount of stock sent out from the mill. ⁵²

Dorn had given Koehler a specific answer to his question about the resharpening, so saying “now and then” was simply a way to avoid the facts.

Accompanied by Detective Bornmann, I visited the various yards that received 1 x 4 inch lumber from the M. G. & J. J. Dorn Company, until I found lumber at the National Lumber and Millwork Company, in the Bronx, which showed exactly the same defect in planing on one side and on one edge as occurs on the ladder rails. ⁵³

What we see here isn’t a direct lie but one of omission, that the third defect, not present on rails 12 and 13, had led him to conclude he had not found what he was looking for during his investigation. This was because rails 12 and 13 must have been dressed before that piece, because of the missing defect. This is a key piece of information to leave out, so what we see here is that Koehler’s own position on knife sharpening neutralizes any testimony that would indicate he had found it. What he wrote next clearly indicates this, in the actual Q & A portion:

Q. Is it possible that lumber with the same planing defects on it also was shipped to another lumber dealer? (It may be better not to bring this up unless necessary.)

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Since planer knives must be sharpened repeatedly, defects in their edges are ground out and do not show up in lumber over a long period. ⁵⁴

Once again, considering that Dorn had previously explained to Koehler that the company could dress “from 25 to 30 cars of good clean lumber before having to resharpen the side heads,” this is misleading. We already know how this could have happened, through all the previous documentation cited.

Once Koehler and Davis again returned east from Madison, they went to Trenton headquarters and a new report was drafted. This report concluded that the samples from National matched rails 12 and 13 concerning the “eight knives in top and bottom cutter heads,” the “six knives in side cutter heads,” the same “rate of feed” of “each revolution” for top and bottom cutter heads, as well as matching speed for each revolution of the side heads. The report concluded a match which concerned “presence of the peculiar machining defect on one edge and one side.” ⁵⁵

The FBI

The FBI made several important references to rails 12 and 13, which I believe also show evidence of the real situation. As I’ve previous outlined in this and my two previous volumes, the FBI and NJSP weren’t always on the best . Much information had been concealed and, in the summer of 1934, Special Agent Sisk attempted to “square up” certain information he believed was kept from the Bureau. On one such occasion he brought up a matter which dealt with this issue:

I also took this up with Captain Lamb during this conversation certain rumors which had reached me through Lieutenant Finn to the effect that some of the wood used in the ladder had been traced to a Bronx lumber yard. Lieutenant Finn had stated that Police Headquarters received reports some months ago that the State Police had been checking various lumber yards in the Bronx. Captain

Lamb stated that he thought at one time they had the ladder traced to a Bronx lumber yard but it “washed out”; that they checked every lumber yard in the Bronx and Manhattan without success, the check having been made by Troopers Patterson and Zapolsky. Lieutenant Finn asked Captain Lamb the name and location of the lumber yard to which they thought they had the ladder traced and Captain Lamb stated he would find out. ⁵

Since it can be shown that the NJSP often lied to the FBI about certain key aspects of the case, one could argue that Captain Lamb was lying here too. After all, he is omitting both Bornmann and Koehler’s names as being connected to this investigation, which seems intentional. But his statement to Agent Sisk perfectly aligns with Koehler’s own documentation. So, while he may have wanted to keep the FBI away from Koehler and Bornmann concerning the wood aspect, it’s obvious the lumberyard search had not yielded a match at that point.

On October 8, 1934, Arthur Koehler testified before the Hunterdon County grand jury, recounting how he had traced some of the wood from the kidnap ladder “to a Bronx lumber yard where Hauptmann was at one time employed.” ⁵⁷ This is certainly interesting testimony, when, as outlined above, the specific questions Koehler needed the answers to for the Flemington trial hadn’t even yet been asked of Dorn. When word reached J. Edgar Hoover about this testimony, he wasn’t sure what to make of it.

I told Mr. Stanley I wanted to discuss with him the propriety and desirability of today or tomorrow formally withdrawing from the Lindbergh case along the lines previously discussed by us. I told him of the row now being engaged in between Mr. Foley and New Jersey, and added to that fact, some of the evidence that was produced in Jersey yesterday is apparently “phoney” [sic]. I stated that if this is not the case, then they have not given us the information heretofore. I told Mr. Stanley I would prepare for him a statement which he might want to consider if the Attorney General considered it desirable to withdraw at the present time. ⁵⁸

This sentiment expressed here has been taken by some over the years to represent Hoover’s position concerning rail 16, but I disagree. As I will demonstrate in the coming pages, the attic board/rail 16 issue hadn’t even been raised yet.

During the trial, Special Agent in Charge Whitley kept Inspector Tamm up to speed on the trial in Flemington. After Koehler’s testimony, Whitley telephoned him with a “resume” of the proceedings, including Koehler’s testimony that, in November 1933, he had succeeded in tracing the wood from the ladder to “National Mill Works Supply” company.

Mr. Whitley stated that this information concerning the identification of the wood used in the ladder was apparently known to the New Jersey authorities as early as November, 1933, in that a New Jersey state trooper had worked with Kohler [sic] on this matter, and that no knowledge of this identification had been given to the Division by the New Jersey authorities; they, in fact, denying at various times that such identification had been made, and denied any knowledge of this. Mr. Whitley stated that the testimony today conclusively proves that the New Jersey authorities had not cooperated with the Division in giving the Division all the information in their possession. ⁵

What Whitley or Tamm hadn’t considered was that the NJSP was being truthful at the time of their requests and hadn’t actually concluded the wood had been traced to National in 1933.

Mr. Whitley stated that during the testimony of Kohler [sic] this afternoon Hauptmann turned quite pale, and apparently understood the damaging nature of it. In Mr. Whitley’s opinion, it was the most convincing testimony of this sort that he has ever heard. By the process of tracing the markings of the saws in the different mills, Kohler [sic] succeeded in establishing a chain of evidence showing that the wood first was cut in a South Carolina mill and then sent to the National Supply Co. in the Bronx, where it was purchased by Hauptmann.

Altogether, Mr. Whitley stated, it was the strongest evidence the state has produced.

But was it true, and if so, had it been actually proven? Or could that conclusion only have come by excluding certain key pieces of information?

Post-Conviction

In the fall of 1935, Koehler wrote an article for the Saturday Evening Post which explained the kidnap ladder and his role in the Lindbergh case in vivid detail. This was obviously written for public consumption as a method to refute or disprove the allegations of misconduct which surrounded and continued to haunt this evidence. In it he wrote about his “discovery” on November 29, 1933 as follows:

The same spacing and in precisely the same location as on the ladder rails. Furthermore, there also appeared a minute planing defect on the face of the sample which I had not seen on the ladder rail until this board directed my attention to it. This made me positive the ladder rails had been a part of a small shipment of 2263 feet of one-by-four-inch lumber to this Bronx firm, the National Lumber & Millwork Company. ¹

Once again, this just isn’t true. Koehler includes everything similar but once again omits the cause for the reason he never concluded such a thing on November 29, 1933.

Elsewhere, Koehler does finally mention the third defect, which he did not bring up during Hauptmann’s trial or in his SEP article:

There was the intermittent defect on the edge with the same spacing and in the same location as on the ladder rail. In addition, there was a slight planing defect on one of the faces which had not been detected on the ladder upright before, on of its having been stained by a finger-print developer, but which now became decipherable. Furthermore, the sample from the Bronx yard showed evidence of one badly dulled knife which did not show on the ladder uprights, thereby indicating that the latter were dressed before the Bronx order was completed and so finally eliminating the Long Island yard as a source. ²

We now see how Koehler was finally able to officially explain away this defect when this same evidence previously caused him so much hesitation and uncertainty. Koehler claimed this information led him to conclude that National was the source of the lumber:

Looking one step further on the back trail to make sure, it was found that the recorded shipment just preceding that to the Bronx, which went to Pennsylvania, had again been dressed 1/8 inch narrower than the critical width and for that reason could be definitely ruled out. No doubt remained that the retail source of the lower uprights of the ladder had been found, and its location was in the Bronx, New York City. This remarkable find was accomplished on __________, 1934. ³

1934. A mistake? A Freudian slip? In any case, Koehler’s prior official documentation of his thoughts and findings can never be disputed. Once again, let’s look at what he was willing to lie about in his testimony:

A. …Therefore, having a defect in the planing on one edge and also on one face of this lumber from the National Lumber & Millwork Company, which corresponds exactly with that similar defect in the ladder rail, I was convinced that I had found the yard from which this ladder, these ladder rails, were

obtained.

Q. And that was- You were brought to that conclusion and opinion in November, 1933?

A. Yes. ⁴

While we might understand why Koehler did not tell the exact truth, it does not excuse him for lying under oath. Simply put, if a conclusion did not exist before Hauptmann was arrested, nothing, to include his arrest, would change that.

The Chisel

Another key piece of supposed evidence against Hauptmann was a ¾” Bucks Brothers chisel found at the Highfields crime scene. Police first tried to find out if this chisel had been in any way connected with the construction of Highfields. Police showed the chisel to Hopewell carpenter and Highfields construction foreman George Hullfish, who said that while the chisel “looked familiar,” he did not recognize it. Hullfish suggested that police ask Highfields’ other construction foreman, Harold Barber, in Princeton. After examining the chisel, Barber was of the same opinion as Hullfish. ⁵ According the U.S. Deputy Marshal Benson, Hullfish believed that every carpenter in Hopewell should be investigated. During a routine investigation two days earlier at a Ringoes farm, police seized “two chisels on the property of the same make as the chisel that we have now in our possession.” Police returned the next day and interviewed both Ludwig Hutzler (aka Lewis Heinman) and Henry Muescher:

Questioned both of these men, as to whether they had any tools and both of them

gave me the tools that they had in their possession and which contained the same stamp as our chisel. They were unable to tell me where they had obtained their tools but stated they had bought them and they had not bought them at any specific place. ⁷

This would become routine, with investigations in and around Hopewell turning up the same type of Bucks Brothers chisels throughout the area. ⁸

In May, Captain Lamb ordered Trooper Kelly to bring the ladder, chisel, dowel pins, and a soil sample from below the Highfields nursery window to Washington, D.C. for analysis. On May 23, Kelly met with Dr. H. G. Knight, chief of the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Dr. Knight arranged for an examination of these items by scientists from the “Bureau of Standards, Bureau of Soil, Bureau of Nurseries, Bureau of Agriculture, Bureau of Forestry, Bureau of Identification, and other Government Bureaus” which started “immediately.” Among those present were Special Agent Appel, an FBI scientist, and Dr. Wilmer Souder of the Bureau of Standards. ⁷ Soil expert Dr. W. H. Fry found a “gummy” substance on the chisel, which he could not identify, as well as an abundance of “calcium carbonate” in the lathed grooves, similar to what was found in lime. ⁷¹ The examinations ended on the night of May 24, and at 10:00AM the next morning, Trooper Kelly collected the evidence, made a verbal report to Schwarzkopf, and began his trip back to New Jersey. Appel wrote a memo detailing the event to Hoover:

Dr. Souder stated that no conclusion that the chisel was used in building the ladder is warranted. In fact, no significance as to the finding of the chisel could be attached. ⁷²

On October 4, Corporals Horn and Leon took the chisel to the Buck Brothers factory in Millbury, Massachusetts and allowed the owner, William L. Proctor, to examine it. The first thing Proctor said was that it would be “impossible” to trace this tool to its owner. He also informed them this was a “#30 handled firmer

chisel sharp beveled edges 5¼” X ¾” leather tip hickory handle” and (when new) “sells at .43 each.” He also said the chisel in question…

…was about 30 years old, that same is worn to about 1½” less than it’s original length, has been exceptionally well taken care of by a person who is more skilled than an ordinary carpenter… ⁷³

Another significant observation was made when Proctor used a Rockwell tester on the chisel:

…the test showed 59 points, which constitutes a perfect cutting tool, the highest number of points being 60, which shows that the original temper is still in this tool, and that it had not been kept sharp by ordinary methods, such as a grind stone or emery wheel, which carpenters use for that purpose. ⁷⁴

Corporals Horn and Leon then purchased a new duplicate chisel and returned to New Jersey with both, which they gave to Lieutenant Keaten. ⁷⁵ On October 17, Detective Bornmann took the chisel to New Brunswick and left it at E. R. Squibb and Sons Biological Laboratories for examination. Squibb was only able to definitely identify:

… (1) spots of rust on the blade and (2) particles of paraffin, particles of putty and quartz grains (probably from soil) in the circular grooves of the handle. ⁷

The “description and markings” section of their report included some interesting observations and information, including the number of scratches, associated with the chisel being in a “tool box.” Another point was, due to the markings on the handle, the chisel had been “used with a sharp-edged metal hammer”:

The greatest depression at the end of the handle on the side where a large piece has been split off indicates that the chisel was usually held in the left hand. ⁷⁷

Squibb also noted that the letters “LK” had been “recently carved between ferule and circular grooves and possibly a letter J,” and also:

The cutting edge of the blade is chipped at the right hand corner and is cut back from the edge on the beveled side at this corner in two places as though chisel had been used to pry against a metallic surface flat side down. The curve of the cutting edge and slope of the bevel indicate that the tool was used and last sharpened by an experienced workman. ⁷⁸

At some point Chief of Mercer County Detectives James Kirkham gained possession of the chisel and took it to the Trenton Police Department, where Captain Harry Botschart ordered Detective William Mullen to show it to local stores in an attempt to learn everything possible about it. What Mullen found was that this chisel was not only sold by “practically all the hardware stores in the City of Trenton” but by “all the leading hardware stores throughout the United States.” He added that it was a “standard” make and was also “used in the Manuel Training Departments of the Public Schools.” Finally, “this tool was the property of someone well acquainted with the handling of tools and the sharpening of tools.” ⁷

Enter Koehler

Koehler was temporarily loaned to the NJSP by Carlile P. Winslow, director of the Forest Products Laboratory, and went to West Trenton in February 1933. ⁸

Upon his arrival, Koehler began a complete and thorough examination of the ladder and other related evidence. He then wrote a report with many important points and observations. Among them was:

The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgment in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship. For a job that was to pull down $50,000, it showed poor workmanship. ⁸¹

Koehler made specific study of the mortises in the ladder rails and wrote:

The chisel used in making the mortises for the cleats evidently was a sharp chisel, since it cut the wood smoothly across along the grain and left no scratches. It is not even possible to determine the width of the chisel used. ⁸²

Koehler felt so strongly that the person constructing the ladder was unskilled that he also wrote:

The workmanship on the ladder was crude and showing very little skill or care in the use of carpenter tools, except that very few hammer blows were visible around the nail heads although they were driven flush with the wood. ⁸³

To further drive home his point, Koehler also noted that some of the rungs were not cut square.

On March 6, Koehler accompanied Detective Bornmann to various points of

interest. Their first stop was Highfields, where they scavenged through the scrap wood pile behind the residence. They went to the Ernest Wend house and then to the home of Charles Schippell. The next day, they consulted Mr. Matthews of the Matthews Construction Company, to discuss the various types of wood used in building Highfields. Koehler and Bornmann then returned to Highfields to search the property and various outbuildings. From there, they visited the Updike-Kennedy Lumber Company in Trenton. ⁸⁴ Over the next several days, the pair searched lumber companies in New Jersey, Staten Island, and other areas of New York City. ⁸⁵ It was around this time that Schwarzkopf felt Koehler was too valuable and requested an extension from Director Winslow, to allow Koehler to continue with the NJSP. ⁸ Over the following days, efforts focused on the kidnap ladder’s dowels and two bottom rails. On March 24, Koehler and Bornmann returned to the Schippell home and broke into the garage. They discovered “a dull iron plane” a “vise,” “two dull saws,” and a “¾” auger.” ⁸⁷ The next day, Koehler consulted with H. S. Betts in Washington D.C. on the ladder evidence. On March 27, he examined the plane marks on the edges rail 16 more closely. Koehler returned to Schippell’s garage with Detective Bornmann, where they seized both his plane and ¾” auger. ⁸⁸ After the planer marks and wood shavings found in the auger did not match these items, they were returned the next day. Although I have been unable to find any evidence of Koehler’s awareness that two Buck Brothers chisels had been confiscated from Schippell’s home in May 1932, I believe this was the reason he went to Schippell’s garage in the first place. ⁸ (After Hauptmann’s arrest, Schippell insisted the NJSP were still in possession of his confiscated tools and was afraid they may have been mistakenly kept as evidence against Hauptmann. He requested an opportunity to identify and retrieve them. Among the items listed were “2 wood chisels (one 1” and one ½”, …)

On March 29, Koehler, Bornmann, and Sergeant Haussling searched the home of Gusto Castagnola in Hopewell. In the “wagon shed” they found “a 5/8” “Buck” wood chisel” “with a battered handle similar to that found at the scene of the crime.” ¹ April 4 ended Koehler’s loan to the NJSP, and by April 6 he was back in Madison continuing his efforts there.

Hauptmann’s Arrest

On September 29, 1934, Detective Ruggiero and Detective Sgt. Kelly began a meticulous inventory of each tool confiscated from Hauptmann’s apartment, his garage, and the trunk of his car. ² This inventory made specific note as to exactly where each tool was located when it was discovered by police:

In the A.M. this date detailed in company with Det. Ruggiero to make an itemized list of the contents of carpenter’s tool box and the contents of a cigar box found in the trunk of Richard Hauptmann, also to make same list of the contents of brown suit case found in the Garage of Richard Hauptmann. ³

According to this inventory, the only chisels found in Hauptmann’s “carpenter’s tool box” were two “cold chisels”:

1 – cold chisel 3/4” National Tool make 1 – cold chisel 3/8” no makers name ⁴

It is important to note that these types of chisels are used only for cutting “cold” metals and are not used on wood. In fact, no wood chisels were discovered in Hauptmann’s toolbox. The wood chisels were instead found in a “cigar box,” located in an entirely different location and nowhere near the toolbox. According to this inventory, these were the chisels among the tools located in the cigar box:

1 – wood chisel, bevel, 1-1/2” wide Jordan make 1 – wood chisel, bevel, 1/4” wide 1 – wood chisel, no handle, 1/2” wide ⁵

After the inventory was complete:

In the afternoon this date proceeded to the Training School at West Trenton and turned the carpenter’s box and the cigar box and contents of both over to Mr. Kohler [sic], also handed the Clerk a copy of attached list.

Once Koehler had possession of these tools, he made another detailed inventory, which he noted within his report. He listed both “cold chisels” as being among the “CONTENTS OF CARPENTERS TOOL BOX FOUND IN GARAGE,” ⁷ and also noted the “CONTENTS OF CIGAR BOX FOUND IN B. RICHARD HAUPTMANN’S TRUNK,” which included the same three wood chisels:

Wood chisel, bevel, 1-1/2” wide Jordan make Wood chisel, bevel, 1/4” wide Wood chisel, no handle, 1/2” wide ⁸

Here we see that the cigar box may have actually been found by police in a closet in the Hauptmann apartment. We can also see that Koehler seems to be deviating from his original ladder report:

The cigar box also contains chisels, ¼”, ½”, and 1-1/2” wide. No chisel ¾” or 1” wide was found in the cigar box or tool chest, although the second recess from the bottom up in rail #16 of the ladder shows that a ¾” chisel was used in cutting out the recess.

Koehler’s working copies of his reports, with his own handwritten notes, show when he made the decision about the recess: “Determined in Oct. 1934 that on rail 16 a ¾” chisel was used in cutting out recess for rung.”⁷ Another interesting observation Koehler made while examining Hauptmann’s tools was that while some of the ladder construction occurred in his garage, additional construction and assembly was probably carried out elsewhere.⁷ ¹

On December 18, Corporal Horn once again traveled to the Buck Brothers factory in Millbury, this time with the ¼” Buck Brothers chisel found among the items in Hauptmann’s cigar box. William Proctor had since died, so Horn consulted his son Harold. He advised Horn that it was “impossible” to trace the chisel after it left the factory, explaining that when business was good, it was not unusual for “500 to 700 dozen” to be sold per week to various dealers throughout the United States.⁷ ² He also told Horn that this was a “#30 handled firmer chisel sharp beveled edges 4-3/8” X ¼” leather tip hickory handle” and, “sells at .37 each.” Proctor added that the chisel in question was…

…about 30 years old. Same is worn to about 5/8” less than it’s original length, and has been exceptionally well taken care of, and that the wooden handle on same is probably the original.⁷ ³

Another significant observation was made when Proctor used a Rockwell tester on the chisel:

…the test showed 59 points, which constitutes a perfect cutting tool, the highest number of points being 60, which shows that the original temper is still in this tool, and that it had not been kept sharp by ordinary methods, such as a grind stone or emery wheel.⁷ ⁴

Horn also purchased a brand-new ¼” duplicate of the chisel before departing.

Two days later, Koehler mentioned the chisel in his report:

A ¼” chisel in Hauptmann’s possession is of the same make and model as the ¾” chisel found at the scene of the crime. The general design, the wood of the handles, the machinery on the brass ferrules are all the same. It will be recalled that the mark of a ¾” chisel was found on one of the ladder rails and that no chisel of that size was among Hauptmann’s tools.⁷ ⁵

Pre-trial Preparation

One of the main points Koehler wanted to emphasize to the Flemington jury was that Hauptmann was a very poor carpenter. This is reflected in his mock Q&A:

Q. Does an examination of Hauptmann’s tools indicate to you that he was a good carpenter?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Some of his saws are very dull. Several of his planes are very dull, and a number of them are sharpened with a curve instead of a straight edge. One of the auger bits is very poorly sharpened, two of the chisels have no handles.⁷

So how does he reconcile the fact the chisel found at Highfields was described as being exceptionally well taken care of by a person “who is more skilled than an ordinary carpenter?” How could Koehler explain that the ¼” chisel found in Hauptmann’s cigar box was described similarly? Did someone else sharpen these particular chisels? When it came to the “workmanship” of the ladder, Koehler was just as critical:

The workmanship in the ladder is crude. The lumber selected for the rails is of a cheap common grade which contains some knots. Hand planing was done with a dull plane. Cuts were not always square with the face or edge. Coarser nails were used than should be for driving into the edge of the thin rails, as a result the rails were split in a number of places. Some of the saw cuts made to recess the rungs went deeper into the rails than necessary. In short, the ladder does not appear to be made by an “Expert carpenter”, as was frequently reported in the newspapers.⁷ ⁷

In the same source, Koehler also wrote that “one of the recesses shows that a ¾” chisel was used….”⁷ ⁸ And in his final preparation document he wrote that “one of the recesses made for the rungs shows that a ¾ inch chisel was used in cutting out the wood between the saw cuts.”⁷

The Trial Testimony

The chisel testimony was similar to that involving the tracing of rails 12 and 13. However, the act put on for the jury by Koehler and Wilentz involving that chisel was far worse. Before we examine these issues, it is important to see Koehler’s testimony made under re-direct examination:

Q. You said the ladder wasn’t a good carpenter’s job. It was some sort – are the

tools a good carpenter’s set of tools?

A. I wouldn’t say so, I don’t think they are.⁷¹

The Rungs Recesses

As previously shown, before Hauptmann was arrested, Koehler asserted it was not possible to tell what size chisel was used for the recesses and mortices on the ladder. However, after Hauptmann was arrested, Koehler suddenly knew that the recess in rail 16 had indeed been made with a ¾” chisel. By the time of the trial, Koehler’s observations had mutated into a finding that all recesses on the ladder rails were made using a ¾” chisel:

Q. What sized chisel was used in the construction of this ladder, if you know.

A. A three-quarter inch chisel was used in chiseling out recesses for the rungs.⁷¹¹

No one has done a better job outlining this than Dr. Lloyd Gardner in his book, The Case That Never Dies.⁷¹² Although he cannot hide his obvious disgust for how this was done, Dr. Gardner believes Koehler avoided perjury because he said “used,” but I disagree. No matter how one looks at it, Koehler lied. And what happened next was even worse.

The Charade

The question and answer above were used to lead into and compliment the next exchange. Hauptmann’s toolbox had been originally discovered in his garage underneath his work bench by Detective James Cashman of the NYPD. This toolbox was entered into evidence as Exhibit S-196. Wilentz had the toolbox opened in front of the Jury. He then began what can only be described as a hoax.

Q. Do you know what sizes of chisels make up a carpenter’s chest of chisels?

A. As a rule a good carpenter’s tool chest should contain a quarter inch chisel, half inch chisel, three-quarter inch chisel, one inch, and one and a half, and possibly two inch chisel.⁷¹³

Doesn’t a “good carpenter’s tool chest” imply that a “good carpenter” is the owner of it? The next question is completely misleading, and obviously by design:

Q. Take a look at the chisels found in the Hauptmann place and tell me whether there is a three-quarter inch chisel there or whether one is missing.⁷¹⁴

Clearly, given what we already know from the official documentation, the answer should be that there is a ¾” cold chisel found inside.

Q. Tell us what size chisels there are there. Take your time, Mr. Koehler. Can I help you here?

A. There is a quarter inch chisel, a half inch chisel, and an inch and a half chisel.

Q. Is there any three-quarter inch chisel in the chest that was found in Hauptmann’s home?

Mr. Pope: Is there any three-quarter-inch chisel in the lot displayed there, not found in Hauptmann’s home?

Q. In the exhibit.

A. No.

Q. All right, sir. Now you told us, I think, that a three-quarter inch chisel was used to construct this ladder?

A. Yes, sir.⁷¹⁵

What we see here is that the ¾” cold chisel and the 5/8” cold chisel are no longer in this toolbox. Where did they go, who removed them, and for what purpose? Next, according to Koehler’s testimony, the 1½” wood chisel, the ¼” wood chisel, and the ½” wood chisel are there. Quite the “switcheroo”… This means the wood chisels were removed from the cigar box and added to the tool chest by authorities. In short, Wilentz and Koehler fabricated this exhibit. We know Koehler was fully aware of what was found and where, from his own report previously cited.

The ruse is rounded out by Koehler’s testimony concerning the ¼” chisel found at Highfields being the same make and type as the ¾” chisel “found” in Hauptmann’s toolbox. This of course implies the “missing” chisel was dropped by Hauptmann at Highfields while he was supposedly kidnapping the Lindbergh child. A possibility is being shored up here, by moving some pieces of the puzzle to alter the scenario. Once again, while we might be able to understand why they did this, it is still clearly criminal. The purpose of this false scenario and fake exhibit was meant only to sway the jury and, ultimately, their verdict.

And for anyone who might suggest that perhaps Wilentz was not aware of any of this, I recommend they review his later exchange with Hauptmann:

Q. You the chisels? A. Yes.

Q. You had them in a cigar box, didn’t you? A. No.

Q. You didn’t have them in a cigar box? A. Laying on the shelf.

Q. Where? A. South wall of the garage inside.

Q. Didn’t you have those chisels in the closet of your home? A. Closet?

Q. Yes, in the closet of your home in a cigar box? A. Oh, I guess there was one chisel laying over there. You mean in the apartment?

Q. Yes, in your apartment. A. Yes, I guess one chisel was laying there.⁷¹

The takeaway from this is clear. Furthermore, if something like this is going on here, one must ask themselves where else it might be happening.

Hauptmann, Scaduto, and the Stanley Set

I’ve always wrestled with the Stanley set as it relates to the chisel situation. Since no author since Anthony Scaduto has addressed it, I find myself in the unenviable position where I must attempt to.

It begins with Hauptmann’s interrogation which occurred in the forenoon of September 20, 1934. We know that Hauptmann sometimes lied to investigators, but he also told the truth in other areas. To get to the bottom of anything in this case, we must try to assemble all information to see “what’s what.”

Q- Do you sharpen your tools? A- Yes, sometimes.

Q- What do you use to sharpen them with? A- A little grind stone.⁷¹⁷

While this exchange might not seem important, it is. We know that both Bucks Brothers chisels in question were supposedly sharpened by something other than a grindstone. The next series of questions cuts directly to the chase:

Q- Do you use any chisels? A- Yes.

Q- What kind of chisels do you use? A- All kind, starting with quarter inch up to two inch.

Q- What is the maker’s name of some of them? A- Please?

Q- Who makes them, what brand of chisels do you use? A- Well I have a Stanley and then I have cheaper ones, I didn’t buy any tools for a long time but I got cheaper and better ones.⁷¹⁸

Hauptmann’s reply seems reasonable. He is itting to owning “cheaper ones.” These are obviously those that were found in the cigar box. But there is no record of a set of Stanley chisels on any inventory or anywhere else. Was Hauptmann lying about them? If so, what could be the reason, since he already itted to owning the cheaper chisels?

After Hauptmann’s conviction he had a little more to say about the chisels:

My regular chisel set which lay on the shelf with all the other planes was not brought into Court. It was said that there was none. Why? Because it is a set which looks quite different from the chisel which was found near the ladder. It was a Stanley set.⁷¹

Hauptmann made even more interesting observations and assertions:

The three-quarter inch chisel which was found near the Lindbergh house belonged, according to my judgement, to a wood carver. In following my trade, I had bought a similar quarter inch for fine work. I had cut the handle of it flat so that it could not roll down from the work bench. The chisel which was found at the Lindbergh house was not like this. Furthermore, this was sharpened on a different angle than mine. Since every artisan holds his tools in a particular way for sharpening them, this point alone makes absurd the assertion that this chisel was ever in my possession.⁷²

Hauptmann remained consistent about this, as indicated by a letter to his mother in which he complained about this evidence:

Among my carpenter’s tools they found a chisel which looks in part similar to the one which was found at the Lindbergh home where the ladder lay. That my chisel ground differently, is a different size and has a quite different handle, made no difference to the prosecutor.⁷²¹

Detective Ellis Parker’s interview of Hauptmann stemmed from Governor Hoffman’s involvement. During Parker’s interview, the subject of the chisel came up:

Q. You had some carpenter tools, didn’t you? A. Plenty.

Q. Did you have a Stanley make chisel? A. I got a whole set.

Q. Did you see the chisel they had there at the trial? A. You mean my own chisel?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.

Q. Did the other chisel they said they found at the Lindbergh home? Did it look like yours? A. Never was in my possession. There is another thing – why didn’t they produce

my regular set of chisels. There is a regular set of Stanley chisel. They didn’t produce them because they were in the garage. Two were missing from it. Those chisels they produced you could hardly call chisel. It is a piece of iron. It is the first I bought in the United States. I bought the cheapest tools because of the money, because I didn’t know if I could go in this line, but have one chisel, it is a quarter inch chisel and a ¾ was found I have one ¼. I don’t know if it is the same make, but my chisel that looks the same as a flat handle because I made the handle flat so it wouldn’t roll from the working bench, but this chisel didn’t have it. It was round and damaged. Every carpenter and every draftsman when he has all kinds of tools has always a certain pitch where he grinds his tools and can’t get away, it is his system and that is another thing, the pitch in the chisel.⁷²²

Hauptmann offering up information of this type seems to me to be a mix of what I call “truth and excuse.” Some of it might even be called incriminating. In fact, both chisels had a piece of handle missing. Despite the handle cuts being different in nature, one could argue that both represent the purpose which Hauptmann claimed as to why he did it on his ¼.” One could also argue the exact opposite by pointing out the differences in the way these handles were altered: the “cut” as in the ¼” … or “battered” as in the ¾,” which was the point Hauptmann attempted to make himself. The ¼” handle looks almost “planed” while the ¾” looks “damaged” or “fractured.” In fact, it was Squire Johnson’s position that the ¾” chisel found at the scene had a “break” in the handle, and was therefore not something done intentionally.⁷²³

Unfortunately, the claims concerning the supposed differences in the way the chisels were sharpened can neither be verified nor disproven.⁷²⁴ The chisel found at Highfields disappeared sometime after Hauptmann’s trial. The official NJSP explanation was that in January 1936 “at the direction of Governor Hoffman,” it had been sent to the Court of Pardons but was never returned and “remains missing….”⁷²⁵

By late December of that same year, Ellis Parker, Jr. was still seeking information concerning Hauptmann and his chisels. Parker ed Lloyd

Fisher who, in turn, wrote to Ellis Parker, Sr.:

…Hauptmann had a set of five high class Stanley chisels, ranging in size from one-quarter inch to one and a half inches. They were bought new and were kept rolled in a cloth or imitation leather roll. He also had three or four cheaper chisels, bought one at a time, and not at all uniform. These had been used considerably. Hauptmann states these old chisels ranged from ¼” to 1”. He states that the ¼” chisel among his old chisels looks very much like the threequarter inch chisel in the Stanley set – that is, the handle and the physical features of it. He states that the three-quarter chisel produced by the state as the one that was found near Hopewell looks very much like the one-quarter inch chisel from his old set, which was at his house at the time the authorities made their search. He states that this old quarter-inch chisel was purchased from a hardware store on the East side of Second Avenue, and he thinks between 76th and 77th Street.⁷²

Nothing here strikes me as a lie, unless the ¾” Buck Brothers found at Highfields actually was Hauptmann’s. Parker wrestled with this scenario as it was presented in court. His gut told him something wasn’t right about it; however, he wasn’t privy to the NJSP reports at the time. So, thinking his gut feeling was correct, he believed the Stanley set had been purposely removed as the actual basis for his suspicions.⁷²⁷

Anthony Scaduto

Anthony Scaduto’s book, Scapegoat, is the chief source many use to show that a ¾” wood chisel had been discovered by police among Hauptmann’s tools in his garage, but was then “hidden from the jury.”⁷²⁸ In describing this, Scaduto wrote the following:

With advance permission from Deputy Supt. Quinn (by telephone), I visited N. J. State Police Hqts. in or around December, 1975, on a promise from Quinn that I could look through the Lindbergh Case files at my leisure. But on my arrival Major William Baum told me that I could do no such thing; at most, he said, I would be permitted to see and photograph some of the evidence made public at the trial – the ladder, Osborn’s handwriting displays, etc. Nothing more. And Baum assigned a state trooper to watch me, to make certain I didn’t rummage through the files. The trooper took me to what he said was the oldest barracks building on the grounds, and down in the basement was the Lindbergh Case Room – a room about 12 feet by 8, with prison-type cell bars on it and a sign identifying it as the repository of Lindbergh materials. I went through the motions of examining and photographing the evidence to which Baum had ordered me restricted. Then, because the curiosity of the state trooper overwhelmed his orders, we did begin to sift through some materials. We found the “missing” chisel, for example; we took some of the posters issued after the child was kidnapped; we examined Hauptmann’s tool box, now terribly rusted and falling apart; and so on.⁷²

According to Scaduto, the trooper with him pulled from a locker an envelope marked “two old chisels found in Hauptmann’s garage” with two ¾” chisels inside.⁷³ One was an “almost new” Buck Brothers and the other a “much older Stanley” with a side of its handle “whittled flat.”⁷³¹ Based on this discovery, Scaduto believed police had actually found these chisels among Hauptmann’s tools, then removed them so it could be testified to that none of that size were among his tools.

The problem with these early (and even later) authors is that they did not have access to everything, as I have, and it is therefore very easy to see why Scaduto would jump to these types of conclusions. Under the circumstances, it made complete sense. My first step as a researcher was to evaluate this discovery. Unfortunately, like S-34, these chisels are either missing or no longer exist. There has been much talk among certain message-board personalities that Scaduto invented this discovery. I find that accusation to be very reckless, and will offer my own opinion on the matter.

First, it is reasonable to believe that Hauptmann did own a set of Stanley chisels. But since they are not mentioned in any report or listed on any inventory, it is equally reasonable to believe they were not in the garage or on the Hauptmann premises after his arrest. Exactly why I cannot say, but there could be any number of reasons. For example, we know that Victor Schussler had both permission and free access to Hauptmann’s garage where, according to Hauptmann, these chisels had been located. Schussler also claimed he often borrowed Hauptmann’s tools.⁷³² Or, as Koehler suggested, there was another place where Hauptmann assembled the ladder (or something similar). Perhaps Hauptmann brought some of his tools, including the Stanley set, to that location. After all, the main reason for Koehler’s suggestion was the fact other tools needed to construct that ladder were also “missing,” which was precisely what caused him to believe they were elsewhere.⁷³³

Next, as indicated above, there’s a pattern of police securing a new version of whatever chisel they brought to have evaluated at the Buck Brothers factory. It appears by Scaduto’s description that he most likely discovered the ¾” chisel police purchased during their October 1932 visit to the factory. It also seems possible that they followed this pattern by purchasing a Stanley ¾” chisel for the exact same reason, for evaluation and examination purposes based on Hauptmann’s assertion that he owned such a chisel. In the end, there is no reason to leave such a find out of a report or inventory, because those police would not know of its importance (or lack thereof) on the date in question. Furthermore, what they do list has allowed me to clearly demonstrate how nefarious their tactics were.

Rail 16

One of the biggest pieces to the puzzle of the ladder evidence is the infamous rail 16, disputed by many to this very day as having been fabricated by police. Since I believe I have everything there is to find on the subject, and that I know

what happened, it is something that must be properly laid out and is a very difficult story to tell.

All controversy around this subject began when Arthur Koehler testified in Flemington that the 27th floorboard in Hauptmann’s attic was partially removed to be used as rail 16 in the kidnap ladder. S-226 was the part of the floorboard which remained in the attic floor, and history records it as being discovered by Detective Lewis Bornmann of the NJSP, on September 26, 1934. As I’ve previously demonstrated, both Koehler and Bornmann were no strangers to engaging in deception. But by the same token, it wasn’t something they engaged in regularly, so there was legitimacy and skill in their job performances as well. Since Bornmann was credited with finding S-226, then, although many previous books have told this same story, some of it must be done again to properly demonstrate what actually happened.

The Search Begins

At 10:00 AM on September 20, 1934, Special Agent Turrou, Sergeant Wallace of the NJSP, and Detective Petrosino of the NYPD began a systematic search of Hauptmann’s home, including the attic.⁷³⁴ It was after “a thorough canvass of the floors was made, but nothing was found” that their search “was then transferred to the garage,” where police found two separate hidden stashes of ransom money.⁷³⁵ That same day, Captain Lamb ordered Corporal Leon to assist NYPD Lieutenant Frank McCarthy in searching the Hauptmann home to attempt to locate “ransom money and other evidence.”⁷³ Upon arriving, Leon learned of the ransom money find, which he referred to as “over $13,000.”⁷³⁷ Among the many searches conducted that day, Leon, along with Special Agent Wright and Lieutenant McCarthy, searched the attic but “was unable to find anything connected with the Lindbergh Case.” However, they did find and confiscate…

…several nails found in the garage along with a nail keg and a pair of blue

pants belonging to the suspect, for the purpose of comparing with the evidence now held in the Lindbergh Case.⁷³⁸

The next day, Arthur Koehler typed out a letter of congratulations to Captain Lamb. In this letter, he mentioned rail 16:

That board may have been taken from a local structure accessible to the maker of the ladder, possibly because something may have gone wrong with a piece of 1 x 4 that originally had been secured for the purpose. I suggest that a search be made for such lumber on the premises of any suspect, so as to secure additional circumstantial evidence. The planer marks on the rail and on similar lumber should be a highly reliable check.⁷³

The following morning, Koehler saw a picture of Hauptmann’s garage in the newspapers, prompting him to immediately communicate with police by telegram:

Newspaper pictures show garage with scraps of wood and wood brackets on wall and vice STOP Vice possibly used for clamping rails together when sawing and may have left marks suggest guard everything.⁷⁴

On September 22, Lamb sent Detective Sergeant W. P. Kelly and Sergeant Zapolsky to the Hauptmann apartment, not for any reason related to Koehler’s communication, but instead with specific instructions to search for an instrument that could have made the signature symbol in the ransom notes, as well as anything related to Isidor Fisch. It’s hard to know whether Lamb received Koehler’s message or simply had not prioritized his suggestion. When they arrived, Kelly and Zapolsky found the Hauptmann residence swarming with police:

We were instructed to assist with searching said apartment and in particular look for an instrument that may have been used to make the holes in the ransom notes. Searched as instructed, in company with Sgt. Wallace, N.J.S.P., Det. Wm. Wallace, E. F. Murphy, F. X. Dunn and J. Petrosini [sic], all of the N.Y.C. Police. Sgt. Zapolsky and I searched, in particular, the attic, the baby’s room and the hall. From the attic we confiscated a canvass mason’s bag containing two trowls [sic] and two pieces of bent pipe, one empty brown stiff suit case.⁷⁴¹

This search shows that prior investigators did not deem these items connected to the case, however, with the specific instructions W. P. Kelly and Zapolsky had, this could show why they decided to grab whatever they could find. It could also be that, as time went by and there was less and less to discover, investigators wanted to find something they could point to as justification for their efforts. Since no one would ever accuse these men of planting the items in the attic, I think this example is one that researchers need to consider when evaluating certain discoveries, or lack thereof, by investigators.

Evaluating the Reports

Lewis J. Bornmann

As we know, Bornmann worked alongside Koehler during many of his ladder and wood investigations. It is therefore undeniable that he was thoroughly aware of this evidence. However, Bornmann’s duties kept him away from the Hauptmann apartment until September 24, when he…

Was then instructed by Captain Lamb by phone to report at 9 A. M. the following

day to Hauptmann’s house at 1279 East 222nd Street, Bronx, New York and to make a thorough search of same for anything which might be of value in this investigation.⁷⁴²

In this report there is clear indication that Lamb was not instructing Bornmann to make any specific investigation into rail 16 or other wood related items. Instead, he was given a general directive to look for “anything which might be of value.” Bornmann’s activities at Hauptmann’s apartment on September 25, 1934, have been previously discussed in V2.⁷⁴³ That same day, Detective Sergeant W. P. Kelly was sent back to the Hauptmann apartment by Captain Lamb, specifically to “search for the left shoe of a pair of athletic shoes used by boxers or wrestlers, with no heels.”⁷⁴⁴ Upon Kelly’s arrival, he met up with “Det. Bornmann” as well as “Det. Tobin” and the “squad of N. Y. C. carpenters under the supervision of Building Inspector Wilson,” and assisted them in searching the house.⁷⁴⁵

The most important and controversial day, September 26, 1934, is covered by four separate reports written by Detective Bornmann:

Report #1: There is a reference under the date of this report, indicating it was made from the Bronx County Court House. It contains several revisions and strike-outs and only covers September 25 and 26. The first important part of this report is as follows:

Detailed this date by Captain Lamb to proceed [^] (from the Training School) to the above captioned home and work with Detective Maurice Tobin of the Bronx Detective Bureau in conducting a thorough search of the premises and garage occupied by Hauptmann.⁷⁴

As this report relates to the attic search on “Sept. 26th.1934”:

This date detailed by Captain Lamb to continue search on the above captioned home. Meeting Det. Tobin the two police carpenters and Supt. Wilson on the premises at nine A. M. We immediately proceeded to make a through [sic] search of the attic, nothing of value was found with the exception of several small pieces of wood and shavings and several cut nails that may possibly have a bearing on the case. Tesses (These) were retained by the undersigned and later turned over to Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist of the U.S. Forest Products Labortory [sic] who is now at the Training School, West Trenton, for comparison with the wood and #### cut nail holes in the ladder used in kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.⁷⁴⁷

Report #2: This report was written on a different typewriter. Since I have experience with Bornmann’s reports, this has the appearance of having been typed on whatever kind of typewriter he typically used when writing his reports. It also lacks the reference to the “Bronx County Court House.” With this in mind, it is my opinion it was the edited version of Report #1, re-typed in New Jersey. For the purposes of both example and clarity, here is the first important part:

Detailed this date by Captain Lamb to proceed from the Training School, West Trenton, N. J., to the above location and work with Detective Maurice Tobin of the Bronx Detective Bureau in conducting a thorough search of the premises and garage occupied by Hauptmann.⁷⁴⁸

As this report relates to the attic search on “Sept. 26, 1934”:

This date detailed by Captain Lamb to continue search on the above captioned home. Meeting Det. Tobin, the two police carpenters and Supt. Wilson on the premises at nine a.m. we immediately proceeded to make a thorough search of the attic. Nothing of value was found with the exception of several small pieces

of wood and shavings and several cut nails that may possibly have a bearing on the case. These were retained by the undersigned and later turned over to Arthur Koehler, wood technologist of the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory who is now at the Training School, West Trenton, for comparison with the wood and cut nail holes in the ladder used in kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.⁷⁴

#1 and #2 are obviously the same report. One was written later, re-typed with the appropriate corrections at a different location. Since the last date on both is September 26, one might assume that was the date it was written. However, with the reference of Arthur Koehler “who is now at the Training School,” this is a clear indicator that neither could have been typed up prior to September 28, which was the date that Koehler arrived at the Training School from Madison, Wisconsin.⁷⁵

Report #3: This report was clearly written after the first two. It starts at September 25 but extends into October, ending on the 8th. October 8, 1934 is a significant date as well, and I believe events which had since transpired were the reason for this report to alter the facts previously recorded in Reports #1 and #2. First, here is the important part of this report, to compare with Bornmann’s earlier :

Detailed this date by Captain Lamb at the Training School to meet Detective Tobin of the Bronx Detective Bureau at the home of the above captioned and conduct a thorough search of the house and garage and to pay particular attention to any wood that might be of the type that was used in the construction of the ladder.⁷⁵¹

Prior to all of Bornmann’s reports, officers included their specific instructions when writing their own. Why hadn’t Bornmann done so, if he had been given these specific directives which concerned what he now wrote in his latest version? The next area of importance concerning September 26 is this:

This date again met Detective Tobin and Police Carpenters Anselem Cramer Sr. and Charles Enkler and continued the search of the Hauptmann home and garage (see separate report covering the finding of a piece of wood and cut nails which were turned over to Arthur Koehler for examination, also covering the finding of additional ransom money and small automatic pistol found concealed in the garage).⁷⁵²

This report documents that a specific piece of wood was discovered and that both were “turned over to Arthur Koehler for examination.” Was this “piece of wood” among the “several small pieces of wood and shavings” he mentioned in his two prior reports on this search? The only way to know is to consult the “separate report” which he referenced in the following.

Report #4: This report was also obviously written after Reports #1 and #2. It seems clear to me that it was written as a companion to Report #3. I believe both were written to complement each other then typed on the same day. I find the last paragraph most important:

After concluding the search of the attic we then proceeded to the garage located in the rear of the Hauptmann home to search for further evidence (see separate report of this date covering finding of additional ransom money and automatic pistol concealed in a piece of 2 x 4” found in this garage).⁷⁵³

Aside from the errors, Reports #1 and #2 share the same wording on the subject line. But this differs when comparing it to Reports #3 and #4, which share the same wording on the subject line as well. I believe this s my position about the timing and relationship between the two. Another commonality between #3 and #4 is the use of parentheses, which refer to other more specific reports. This isn’t done in #1 and #2, and in fact, those reports include all the specific and relevant information instead – which do not include anything about

the other important part of Report #4:

This date while searching for evidence in the attic of the apartment of the above captioned it was noticed that the flooring was unfinished and that same consisted of 27 pieces of 1 x 6” N. C. Pine tongue and groove roofing approximately 20' ½” in length, same running East and West, and nailed to the rafters with cut nails. It was noticed the last board of the flooring on the south side was not the same length as the others and further investigation disclosed that a piece of this board approximately 8 foot long had been removed. A small quantity of sawdust between the joists and also nail holes on the joists and a small saw mark on the ading board affirmed the fact that this particular board had been removed. I then removed a section about 9 foot long from this particular board, and being familiar with the various kinds of wood used in the construction of the ladder and as the flooring appeared to be of the same type of wood as the rails in the ladder, this particular section was removed to be turned over to Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist, who is now at the Training School, for a more thorough examination. This board was removed in the presence of Detective Maurice Tobin of the Bronx Detective Bureau and Police Carpenters Anselm Cramer, Sr. and Charles Enkler. I then requested Police Carpenter Cramer, Sr. to remove cut nails which had been used to fasten this board to the joist, these to be turned over to Mr. Arthur Koehler for comparison with the nail holes on rail #16 of the ladder.⁷⁵⁴

While Report #3 refers to this report, it also states both the nails and board were turned over to Koehler. But Report #4 says to be turned over to Koehler. One might suggest this means #4 was written first or that it was written to appear that way. Since it is dated September 26, 1934, that is the impression I get. However, Reports #1 and #2 are clear indicators as to the true situation. First, there is nothing about this find in either. Second, there are no parentheses referring to a more specific report because they were specific, so there would have been no need for them. In my opinion, what we have here is evidence that Bornmann was attempting to add or supplement information into past reports by making it look as though a more current report had been previously written around that time. This becomes even clearer as we examine Arthur Koehler’s reports.

The Bracket

Another test of the Bornmann reports is his discovery of the bracket in Hauptmann’s garage. There is no mention of it in Reports #1 and #2 for the dates of September 25 or September 26. However, it does appear in Report #3:

September 27, 1934.

This date again met Detective Tobin and Police Carpenters Anselem Cramer Sr and Charles Enkler and two laborers, and proceeded to tear down the garage. There was found a small piece of pine which had been used to a shelf in the garage which showed marks of being planed by hand. This was reserved to be later turned over to Arthur Koehler for examination.⁷⁵⁵

It makes sense that neither #1 nor #2 include this find because, according to #3, it did not occur until September 27, 1934, and those earlier reports do not cover that date. However, strange as it might seem, Bornmann testified that this discovery also occurred on the September 26:

Q: Now, did you obtain any lumber from the garage which you gave to Mr. Koehler for examination?

A: Yes, sir. After continuing the search of the attic on September 26th we then went to the garage.

Q: I show you a triangular piece of wood and ask you where you obtained that?

A: We obtained that - it was a bracket used to a shelf on the north side of the garage.

Q: Was that afterwards delivered by you to Mr. Koehler?

A: Yes, sir, it was.⁷⁵

This bracket was itted as evidence and has the following handwritten notation on it:

Removed from north wall of Hauptmann garage Sept. 26th 1934 Det. L.J. Bornmann⁷⁵⁷

We now have Bornmann’s testimony also in disagreement with his report. Why does the notation on this bracket have this date on it? Was the discovery of this bracket backdated to September 26? If so, that means this notation was made after the report was written which would place it after October 8, 1934. Which of this detective’s reports can be relied upon and trusted? Both my gut and past experience tell me the earliest s are the most trustworthy.

Into the Cellar of Forgotten Things

As he was building his new house, Bruno Hauptmann’s future landlord, Max Rauch, was thrifty and a stickler for anything he deemed inadequate or undone. He often held back payment until every item he listed to his contractor was addressed. And so, having paid for all of the supplies used in the construction of his home, it made sense that he would keep anything that hadn’t been used or was left behind.⁷⁵⁸ Years later, it was plumber Gustave Miller, often called to the Rauch apartment for repairs, who noticed the basement of this property looked more like a “junkyard” than a basement.⁷⁵ In fact, Miller even noticed several boards with nail holes in them on another trip there.⁷ This basement was not ignored by police. On September 20, all the men who had searched the attic on this day also searched the basement, ending with the same results – nothing deemed important was found. But sometime after these searches, Bornmann went to the basement and discovered “some small pieces of wood” which he collected for Koehler’s later examination.⁷ ¹ On September 28, while searching the basement with Special Agent Leslie, Detective Tobin found a “small instrument that appeared to be a paper punch” which the men believed could have been the device that perforated the ransom notes. Their report said this item was turned over to Bornmann.⁷ ² Bornmann was back in the basement again on October 2 dismantling a “bin that Hauptmann had used as a wine cellar.”⁷ ³

Arthur Koehler

As previously stated, Koehler arrived at the NJSP Training School on September 28, 1934. One would expect that since Report #3 says the attic board Bornmann discovered was “turned over to Koehler” and that Report #4 said “to be turned over to Koehler” it was there waiting for him. After all, this board was supposed to have been discovered on the 26th. But was that the case?

Bormann’s report #3 documents the following for September 29:

Proceeded to West Trenton Headquarters with several small pieces of wood found in the garage, cellar and attic of the Hauptmann home which were thought to be of value and same were turned over to Arthur Koehler for examination, requesting that he compare cut nails removed from a piece of flooring in the attic with the cut nail holes in rail #16 (see Koehler’s report covering same).⁷ ⁴

We see here the date that Bornmann retrieved pieces of wood from the cellar which he deemed worthy of examination. We also see pieces of wood found in the garage, as well as nails and wood from the attic. Were any of those pieces from the attic what would later become S-226? Koehler’s report reveals the answer to this question:

Examined package of nails and small pieces of wood collected by Det. Bornmann in Hauptmann’s garage on September 26, 1934. The four 8-penny nails in the package have a “P” on the shank like the nails in the ladder. The cut nails taken from the attic and garage fit the holes in rail #16 exactly, which indicates that the board probably was removed from some of Hauptmann’s previous work either for others or for himself. The small pieces of Ponderosa Pine wood in this package showed no connection with the ladder.⁷ ⁵

This report covers four days from October 1 through October 4. What this tells us is that even if the report was written on the 4th, Koehler still does not know about the supposed attic board that Bornmann claimed he removed from Hauptmann’s attic on September 26. Could it be that since the last entry for Report #3 occurs on October 8, that Bornmann was referring to S-226 being turned over to Koehler sometime after this date instead of on September 26? Even if it wasn’t brought down to the Training School, as Report #3 claimed, why wouldn’t Bornmann, at the very least, have made Koehler aware of the board’s existence? But instead, what we clearly see is that, at this point, Koehler was still speculating as to exactly where rail 16 may have come from.

In this report, Koehler examined the “triangular bracket,” proving this had been brought down to West Trenton as well. During this examination, Koehler concluded the hand plane marks on it matched those found on rail 16 and the pine rungs of the ladder.⁷ This information is certainly damaging to Hauptmann. But while that may be, the fact that Koehler had no idea about Bornmann’s attic board discovery at this time makes no sense. Once again, we can plainly see, by this next examination he is in the dark:

A cardboard cover containing shavings and chips from attic of Hauptmann’s home was examined. The wood was a mixture of southern pine (possibly N. C. pine) Douglas fir and tupelo gum. The presence of ponderosa pine could not be definitely determined. Some of the chips were pieces of the tongue of a tongue and grooved board. One of the larger pieces showed the tongue distinctly. These may have come from the edges of the trap door leading into the attic.⁷ ⁷

This shows Koehler had received some information about the nature of Hauptmann’s attic, while at the same time having no clue about this major discovery, which we’ve all been led to believe already occurred on September 26. Furthermore, on the heels of such a discovery, one would think Max Rauch would immediately be interviewed about his attic floor. He was not. In fact, police interviewed him on October 5, still searching for clues. Rauch was asked about Hauptmann’s receipts, work materials, and any guests to his apartment during the time of Anna’s trip to , but nothing about the attic.⁷ ⁸

It seems there is little doubt at this point the rail 16 discovery had not been made, at least not yet.

Lewis J. Bornmann / Arthur Koehler

October 8

We now come to what I believe was the day that led to the true discovery of S226, which really occurred on October 9.

On October 8, Koehler, Tobin, and Bornmann were in Flemington testifying before the Hunterdon County grand jury. According to Bornmann, at some point Koehler informed him that the cut nails he had turned over “fitted perfectly into the nail holes found on rail #16.”⁷

Submitted this information to Captain Lamb and requested permission to take Mr. Koehler to Hauptmann’s home and check rail #16 against the piece of flooring in Hauptmann’s attic. Permission was granted with instructions to take Mr. Koehler there the following day.⁷⁷

We see here that on October 8, Bornmann is clearly stating the piece of flooring is still in the attic, not “removed” or “brought down to the Training School.” , this is the same report under the date “September 26,” which stated this board was turned over to Koehler along with the nails and refers to Report #4 about that specific discovery. It is almost as if Bornmann was describing events as they existed on some other day, perhaps as they existed on the day he wrote the report, or even in the future, as opposed to what occurred on the actual day in question.

October 9

Bornmann’s Version

According to Bornmann’s report, which covered this day:

In accordance with instructions received from Captain Lamb the previous day, the undersigned proceeded with Mr. Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist, to the Hauptmann home for the purpose of ing whether or not a piece of flooring taken up from the attic of the Hauptmann home on September 26th checked with rail #16 of the ladder. A check was made by Mr. Koehler who verified the fact that rail #16 had originally been a part of the same board. Nail holes in the joists left by the removal of the section, spoken of in the report of September 26th [Author’s note: Report #4], check perfectly with nail holes in rail #16 and is further proof that rail #16 had originally been part of this board. The undersigned cut down this 9 foot section of flooring, removed on September 26th and still kept at the Hauptmann home for safe keeping, to 6' 8½” to enable same to be put into a car and transported to these Headquarters.⁷⁷¹

The men then informed Captain Lamb of these findings and were instructed to return to the Training School and report to Colonel Schwarzkopf. Once informed, he instructed the men to go to the apartment the next day “with Rail 16 and have it photographed in relationship to the remaining length of flooring and its original position on the attic joist.”⁷⁷²

Once again, we see the flip-flop of locations for S-226. According to this report, S-226 had been actually “taken up from the attic” on the 26th. This report shows it wasn’t still in the attic. So why was it still there on the previous day?

Koehler’s Version

According to Koehler’s report, he and Bornmann arrived at Hauptmann’s apartment on October 9, and searched the garage and basement.⁷⁷³ After finding nothing of value, they climbed into the attic. Koehler noted the floor had consisted of 27 widths of 1 x 6” tongue and grooved N. C. pine. He also noted that they extended 20' 2”, except at the hole in the entrance point as well as a piece along the south side, which only extended about halfway. Koehler’s report explained:

This piece had been taken up by Detective Bornmann (except for a short end by the East wall which broke off) and taken to Troop “C” Headquarters for comparison with rail 16 because both have cut nail holes in them. The cut nails taken from the board in the attic fitted exactly into the holes in rail #16.⁷⁷⁴

Here we go again. Now Koehler documents that Bornmann had “taken up” S226 and brought it down to the Training School. But since this report was written on October 31, could he be writing this fact from a “present-day” standpoint? In other words, if S-226 was at the Training School on October 31, could this be what he meant? It is the only option, considering what Bornmann wrote about cutting down that board in his report for this date.

Koehler continued:

On this day [Oct. 9th] we took back the piece taken up in the attic and replaced it, driving the cut nails partly back into their original position. At that end of this board which was near the middle of the attic there was sawdust on the lath and plaster below; and in direct line with the end there was a short saw cut into the adjacent board. Both of these facts indicated that a piece had been cut off from the board right there in the attic. Furthermore the joists beyond the end of this board had cut nail holes in them from which the nails had been removed, all of which indicated that part of the board had been removed at some previous date.

I had in my pocket note book measurements of the distances between the four nail holes in rail #16, and Detective Bornmann and I compared those distances with distances between nail holes in the joists and found that four of those in the joists corresponded exactly with those in the rail.⁷⁷⁵

Here Koehler says they “took back” S-226. Since in the previous paragraph of this section it says this board had been taken to “Headquarters” it is easy to draw the conclusion that he was saying they brought S-226 “back” from there. However, it could also be that he’s merely saying they brought it back into the attic. Either way, both would be untrue if we consider what Bornmann wrote in Report #3 about the board still being in the attic on October 8. Another point is that Koehler also does not mention any other policeman being present with them on this date.

October 10

Bornmann’s Version

According to Bornmann’s report:

This date accompanied by Sergeant Schultz and Mr. Koehler, proceeded to the Hauptmann home with rail #16, taking photographs of the rail in its original position from which it had been removed. It was photographed from all possible angles to show its relationship to the remaining flooring and the piece that was removed on September 26th being replaced for the purpose of photographing. Cut nails were inserted in the nail holes on rail #16 and this rail was then laid across the joists and these nails fitted perfectly into the old nail holes still in the joists, showing further that this rail had been a part of that particular piece which still remained in the flooring of the attic. The grain of rail #16 matched

perfectly with that of this particular piece of flooring which is further proof that rail #16 had been a part of this particular piece and had been hand planed down to its present size. (See Mr. Koehler’s report for further details). These photographs were taken in the presence of Detective Tobin and Police Carpenters Anselem Cramer, Sr. Shield #6180 and Charles Enkler, shield #3833.⁷⁷

This is self-explanatory. We also see that while there was no mention of any other police officers being with Bornmann and Koehler on October 9, we do see Bornmann claiming that, on October 10, Schultz, Tobin, Cramer, and Enkler also accompanied them. Since this is the same report, it seems unlikely anyone mentioned on this day would be omitted on the previous day, if they had been there.

There’s something else under this date that I find to be of particular importance:

Access to the attic of Hauptmann’s home is gained only through a small linen closet approximately 8 foot high, 28” deep with an inside width of 22½” and a door 15½” wide, this door having a knob lock. It would be impossible for anyone other than the occupants of the apartment to gain access to the attic. Photographs were also taken showing the linen closet.⁷⁷⁷

This is a double whammy for Hauptmann. Not only is this a match, it is in a place only he had access to.

Koehler’s Version

Reading over Koehler’s report that included October 10 reveals the following:

Detective Bornmann and I took rail #16 to Hauptmann’s attic and placed it on the joists where the piece was missing. By taking cut nails out of the portion of the board, which had previously been taken up by Detective Bornmann, and placing them in the holes in rail #16 and tapping them lightly with a hammer all four could be driven through into corresponding holes in the joists. The nails were not driven in completely but far enough to make sure that the distance and slant of the nails coincided exactly in the rail and joists. The nails were driven partly by New York City Police Carpenter Anselm Cramer Sr. and partly by myself. Mr. Cramer pulled them out by direct pull with a pair of pliers which showed that they came out easily and therefore had been driven into preexisting holes.⁷⁷⁸

This portion of Koehler’s report seems to be a more detailed version concerning the board placement and nails. What I see here is a more specific version of events as it related to that part mentioned in Bornmann’s report.

Koehler’s report continued:

There was about 1-1/4” 1-5/16” of wood missing between the end of the piece of flooring and the rail when both were fixed in their original position by the nails. That much evidently had been cut off in squaring off the end of the rail. A piece of two feet long must have been cut off the other end. We looked for these pieces but could not find them in the attic.⁷⁷

While it may seem odd that Bornmann did not go into detail about this, it does match up with his general claim about the two boards being connected.

And the final sentence which related to this attic visit:

There were present at the time to witness this operation, Detective Tobin, Carpenter A. Cramer Sr. and Carpenter Charles Enkler of the New York City Police Department, and Detective Bornmann and myself.⁷⁸

For the same point I made with Bornmann’s report, which omitted mention of these men on October 9, I make it here again. Koehler mentioned their presence on this day but not the previous day.

October 11

On this day, Koehler spent time examining the growth rings of both S-226 and rail 16. He concluded they had the same “curvature and the same width” and that they came from the “same piece.”⁷⁸¹ Meanwhile, Detective Bornmann interviewed Max Rauch about the situation. Rauch had no problem telling Bornmann that before Hauptmann moved in that he…

…inspected the attic and had found same in perfect condition, the flooring being intact and the same as upon the completion of the house on August 1927.⁷⁸²

As I previously mentioned, it seems incredibly odd that this interview occurred so long after September 26, unless one considers the discovery of rail 16 was actually made on October 9. With this date in mind, it makes much more sense. Nevertheless, Rauch’s willingness to throw his hat into the ring with police about the idea that Hauptmann had removed that board was extremely damaging to Hauptmann.

October 12

According to Bornmann, on the 12th and “in compliance with instructions received by Captain Lamb” he made arrangements with Sergeant Schultz to “report to the Hauptmann home to take photographs of the linen closet through which access is gained to the attic.”⁷⁸³ This seems odd since Bornmann already claimed Schultz took pictures of this closet on the 10th, but it certainly isn’t beyond the realm of possibility for more pictures to have been taken later. In Koehler’s October 12 report, he claims to have “visited Hauptmann’s house in the Bronx in company with Sergeant Schultz” but that there was nothing new learned from this visit.⁷⁸⁴

October 13

Here, Koehler writes the following:

Sergeant Schultz and I photographed ladder rail #16 and board from Hauptmann’s attic. I prepared impressions of hand plane marks for photographing.⁷⁸⁵

Pretrial Preparation

Arthur Koehler

In preparation for the trial, prosecutors would write various notes concerning what they expected certain witnesses would testify to.⁷⁸ They would also sometimes take pre-trial statements from witnesses, to prepare them for their eventual testimony. As mentioned earlier in Arthur Koehler’s case, he typed up his own pre-trial notes and Q&As, which contain a couple of interesting items relating to S-226. In describing his search for wood similar to that used in the ladder while at the Hauptmann residence, Koehler wrote that he searched over “a pile of lumber from the demolished garage used by Hauptmann” and “found no lumber like that in the ladder.”⁷⁸⁷ This document mentioned the bracket found in the garage and “previously” delivered to him by Detective Bornmann. Also mentioned in this document are two important dates:

October 1

On October 1, 1934, Detective Bornmann turned over to me some cut nails taken from the attic floor of the house where Hauptmann lived to see if they fitted into the cut nail holes in the rails referred to. I found they fitted exactly, as I will demonstrate to the jury.⁷⁸⁸

Although Koehler remained consistent about the nails fitting into the holes, the problem here, as I’ve said, is that Bornmann wrote in his report (#3) that he turned these items over on September 29.⁷⁸

October 9

On October 9th, Detective Bornmann, Detective Tobin of the New York City Police and I entered the attic of Hauptmann’s house. This was done by climbing up in the inside of a closet 22” x 28” opening off the hallway on the second floor.⁷

Here we see for the first time that Tobin was with Bornmann and Koehler on this day. However, nowhere (so far) are either Enkler or Cramer mentioned as being present. Since Bornmann’s report omitted Tobin, why bring him up here if there were additional officers who accompanied Koehler and Bornmann? This document also includes additional information for this date:

This latter piece extended only a little half way, 11' 4-1/4” to be exact, across the attic. (Detective Bornmann had taken up the greater part of this piece to lock it up for safe keeping), but we replaced it and drove the original nails partly into the original nail holes so that it was in its original position.⁷ ¹

Of course, this contradicts Koehler’s report of October 31. While it claimed Bornmann had indeed “taken up” S-226, it also claimed it was then taken to Troop “C” Headquarters.

October 10

The next day Detective Bornmann and I took the ladder rail with the cut nail holes in it and laid it on the attic floor. We took cut nails out of another board in the attic floor inserted them into the holes in the ladder rail so that they protruded a little on the lower side. We then fitted these four protruding nail points into corresponding nail holes in the joists and found them to fit exactly. With light tapping with a hammer the nails could be driven into the holes in the joists below. Not only is the spacing of the nail holes the same on the rail as in the joists but the slant of the nail holes is the same in the two. New York Police Carpenter Anselm Cramer, Sr. drove some of the nails and I drove some. In addition to those already mentioned, New York Police Detective Tobin and Police Carpenter Charles Enkler were present.⁷ ²

To comprehend this information’s importance, we must understand the context in which it was written. This document was meant to assist whatever testimony Koehler wanted presented on the stand. With this in mind, would he make sure to list who was in the attic on October 10 but purposely omit them on the October 9 if they were there?

In the different document there are some differences. First is this:

I found no wood like that in the ladder among lumber from the demolished garage or in the basement, or second story of the house occupied by Hauptmann.⁷ ³

I find this important because Koehler hadn’t mentioned the basement in the previous document. Next, he obviously found it necessary to point out where there were no connections to the ladder from any of these sources. This next bit of information comes without any specific date attached. However, it appears to describe what he wrote about in the December pretrial testimony outline as had occurred on October 9:

On entering the attic I noticed that the middle portion of the attic, a portion about 12-1/2 feet wide, was floored with 27 widths of 1 x 6” tongued and grooved North Carolina pine. The pieces of lumber used for the floor are one piece for the full width of the attic, a distance of 20 ft. 2 in., except where the hole is located through which entrance is gained from the closet below, the tenth piece from the North edge, the seventh piece from the South edge and for the piece along the south edge of the floor. Along the south edge there were nail holes in the joists as if a piece had been removed. I helped replace a piece which Detective Bornmann had removed, but even so it extended only about half way across the attic, or 11 ft. 4 in. to be exact, as shown in the drawing in the exhibit (drawing) and exhibit (photograph). (Bornmann will have to testify that he

removed and replaced a piece of the board.)⁷ ⁴

Unfortunately, there are no reports on this matter written by anyone out of New York which exist at the NJSP Archives. It could be that one day such a report will turn up. However, until then, we only have the sources which do exist to consider.

Trial Testimony

I have found over the years that one of the least trustworthy sources are the transcripts from the Flemington trial. Most State witnesses would at times slant their testimony in or towards the theory put forth by the State. There is no doubt about this. However, this does not mean there is absolutely no value in this source, but the transcripts should always be crosschecked against all other sources to see what can be learned from it. Whether it reveals the truth or some sort of fabrication, we can develop information that gives rise to specific truths or exposes certain lies. Cross-referencing sources, considering variables, and realizing different circumstances are vital to coming as close to the truth as possible.

Detective Lewis Bornmann

During his testimony, Bornmann claimed he was in Hauptmann’s apartment on September 26 “searching for evidence,” which eventually led him to the attic.⁷ ⁵ Bornmann explained that shelves had to be removed from a 28” by 22½” closet to climb up into the attic. He also testified that Cramer, Enkler, and Tobin were with him during this search.

Q: Now, when you got into the attic what did you find?

A: We first made a search for money, we didn’t find any money and during this search I found that all the floor boards were not of the same length, that is the one in the south west corner, a portion of it had been removed.⁷

Bornmann added further that “approximately 8 foot if [sic] had been removed-”⁷ ⁷ Bornmann also testified that none of the men with him did anything to the remaining board but that he did:

After examining that board I then removed about nine foot of this (indicating).⁷ ⁸

Once removed, Bornmann “had Police Carpenter Cramer remove the cut nails from it” and Bornmann claimed he “then took that board down to the second floor and locked it in a bedroom.”⁷ These are very important details considering he claimed this all occurred on September 26, which was the same day his earliest s not only completely omit everything about this, but also specifically state “nothing of value was found with the exception of several small pieces of wood and shavings and several cut nails that may possibly have a bearing on the case.”⁸ If he included “small pieces of wood,” “shavings,” and the “cut nails” as having possible value it seems highly unlikely that he would not have included what he testified to above. Unless, of course, he did see it, but, for whatever reason, did not believe it had any bearing on the case at that time. But that is not what he testified to here.

Moving on to October 9, Bornmann testified that both he and Koehler went to the attic and checked the nail holes in the beams with the nail holes in rail 16.⁸ ¹ Here is where it gets confusing. Bornmann was asked if they matched up; he said they did, and he then moved on to the nails being placed into the actual rail 16 laying on those beams. Since we know that rail 16 had not been brought to

the Bronx on October 9, was this a purposeful maneuver by the prosecution? Bornmann was asked who else was present and he answered “Cramer, Enkler and Detective Tobin.”⁸ ²

Bornmann further testified that, to his knowledge, September 26 was the first time any policeman went up to the attic.⁸ ³ He also again testified that he removed the attic board, stored it in a locked bedroom prior to any visit by Koehler to the house.⁸ ⁴ Bornmann was later recalled to the stand and said that when he pulled up S-226 he “broke it off” then had Cramer “drive the nails through,” who then “extracted them with a pair of pliers.”⁸ ⁵ Other testimony indicated that S-226 showed “the marks of the beams” which would indicate which side was face down.⁸ Bornmann was asked once again the date when he pulled up S-226 and had Cramer extract the nails. He answered “September 26th, 1934.”⁸ ⁷

Charles Enkler

New York Police carpenter Enkler testified that, accompanied by Tobin, Cramer, and Bornmann, they entered Hauptmann’s attic on September 26. Prosecutor Peacock had him explain how difficult it was to get into that attic:

From the hole there is a door and there was a closet, and you had to climb up through this closet; there was cleats holding up shelves and you had to step on these cleats to get up in the attic.⁸ ⁸

Peacock’s line of questioning was designed to emphasize the unaccommodating situation:

Q: Could you get into the attic while the shelves were in the closet?

A: You might have got in but it would be in your way. You had to stand them up so you could keep going.⁸

This is important for two reasons. Not only was the entrance located in the Hauptmann apartment, but it was inside of a closet which would require both an awkward and strenuous ascent. Enkler next testified to the following:

Q: When you gained entrance to the attic, tell the jury what you did.

A: Well, we were looking around and then Detective Bornmann drew our attention to the boards, the floor boards on the south side of the building. These boards, they run from the east to the west side. And on the first board, row of boards, there was about 8 foot missing, leading to - that would be on the south west side, end.⁸¹

If Enkler’s testimony is to be trusted, this means Bornmann did notice a piece of missing floorboard on September 26, but there is no follow up concerning what was done about it on this day. Enkler next testified to something very interesting:

Q: Now, were you with Mr. Bornmann and Mr. Koehler when they took rail 16 and compared it with the board that still existed in the attic floor?

A: Yes, sir.⁸¹¹

This clearly shows Enkler testifying to the fact that S-226 was still in the attic floor on this day. He also testified, under cross examination, that he was present when the picture (S-228) was taken of the floor.⁸¹²

Q: Do you what day this was? A: The day of the pictures?

Q: The day you were there? A: October 10th.⁸¹³

When asked who was with him on this day:

Sergeant Schultz from the New Jersey State Police, he was the photographer, Tobin, Detective Tobin from New York, Bornmann from New Jersey and Cramer from New Jersey [sic].⁸¹⁴

Another important piece of testimony is revealed about S-226 here:

Q: -S-226 and ask you if this is the same board that you are referring to in photograph S-228. A: Yes, sir. I think my name, I have initialed that.

Q: I was just going to ask you that; did you place your name on this board?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Show the jury where your name is. A: There (indicating), my name and shield plate.⁸¹⁵

Anselm Cramer

Once Cramer took the stand, Peacock did not mention September 26. Here is the exchange which took place:

Q: Were you present with Mr. Enkler and Bornmann and Koehler, when they made the examination of the attic of the defendant’s home? A: Yes, sir.

Q: Will you tell the jury what you saw and found the day you made your examination. A: Well, we searched the place upstairs in the attic, and we found a piece of board missing from the floor of the attic. We found another where it had been cut off.

Q: Louder. A: Where this piece of board had been cut off, it sawed into the board that was laying next to it. That was the first board of the flooring across the attic, from one side of the house to the other. Then I saw a piece of lumber supposed to be

from the ladder brought there and laid down by Mr. Bornmann and the nails pushed into the nail holes that fitted into holes in the beam, and I afterwards saw a photograph taken of it. ⁸¹

We know from all the other sources that this specific “examination,” as well as the photographs, took place on October 10. Next, why would these men be “searching” the attic if S-226 was previously discovered on September 26? Shouldn’t they have simply proceeded to that area? Equally important is that Cramer also testified to the fact that S-226 was still in that attic floor on this day:

Q. I call you attention to Exhibit 226 and ask you if that was a piece that came from the east end that was removed that day? A. Yes, that is this piece here.

Q. Yes. A. This piece right here.⁸¹⁷

What Cramer testified to next about S-226 is vitally important:

Q: Did you initial that exhibit that day? A: That is my signature on it.⁸¹⁸

Why is this important? Because while both Cramer and Enkler did sign the face of that board, those signatures are accompanied by the date “Oct 9/34.”⁸¹ While I think it is important that they did not sign on September 26, I also believe it is equally important that it was signed on October 9. Again, while it is my belief

that the actual discovery of rail 16 occurred on this day by Bornmann and Koehler, there is no report at the NJSP Archives which says either of these men were present in the attic on that day. Furthermore, neither man testified to being there on October 9. Enkler specifically said the 10th, and Cramer references a day we know to be the 10th. Of course, that doesn’t mean beyond all doubt they weren’t there that day, but it is something I believe should be considered.

Arthur Koehler

Right at that outset we see some rather interesting testimony from Koehler:

Q: Did you take off this rail 16, a part of Exhibit S-211, for the purpose of investigation in the attic of the Hauptmann home? A: I did.

Q: When did you do that? A: I made that investigation on October 9th, 1933 [sic], the first time.

Q: Having taken off this section rail 19 [sic], what did you find. A: I found that the nail holes in the joists in that attic and the grain of the wood in that rail corresponded exactly with the grain of wood of the board next to it.⁸²

While he appears to be testifying that he brought rail 16 into the attic on October 9, his very own report disproves this testimony. We must ask ourselves why all these contradictions exist, why some reports contradict with other reports, why

testimony contradicts with reports, and why certain testimony contradicts other testimony.

After much wrangling concerning Koehler’s qualifications, his testimony finally cuts to the heart of the matter:

Q: All right, sir. Now, let me ask you again, sir, - I show you State’s Exhibit S226 and I show you rail 16 of State’s Exhibit S-211, and I ask you what, if any, is the relationship between that rail and the exhibit just referred to.

A: As a result of a 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.⁸²¹

Another indication of timing concerning when S-226 was actually removed is reflected in Koehler’s testimony here:

Q: And had that board been removed from the flooring before you took the photograph? A: Yes.

Q: So that before you took the photograph and before you arranged these two boards with the opening between, this particular board to the top and to the left had been remove from the floor? A: Yes.

Q: And put back? A: Yes.⁸²²

Max Rauch

Rauch was asked about the attic floor during his testimony:

Q: Now, prior to October 15th, 1931, were you in the attic of that house? A: Yes, sir.

Q: What date? A: Around October 5th.

Q: And was the attic floor complete on October 5th, 1931? A: Yes, sir.⁸²³

His testimony s what he told Bornmann on October 11. However, what he testified to next is very important:

Q: When did you next go into the attic of that house? A: Around two weeks after his arrest.

Q: Was the attic floor complete at that time? A: No.

Q: What part of it was missing? A: I missed a strip of board – rather, I would say, nine feet in length; not the entire board, but part of it.⁸²⁴

This seems to destroy any notion that S-226 was removed on September 26. If Bornmann had removed S-226 and locked it in the bedroom as he testified, it would not, under any circumstances, still be laying on the floor between September 26 and October 9. The question now becomes whether or not Rauch saw anything unusual or if he was simply following the lead of investigators by providing testimony that he believed would assist them, without realizing the harm he was doing to their narrative. It is a twisted path to walk down. We not only have to figure out whether someone was lying but when they might be lying about the timing of events.

Gustave Miller

The defense called plumber Gustave Miller as a witness. He testified that sometime in August 1934, Mrs. Rauch called him to fix a leak in the Hauptmann apartment.⁸²⁵ Once in the apartment, Miller was able to identify that the leak was coming from above, causing him to climb into the attic. Defense attorney Reilly showed Miller a picture of the attic floor (S-215). With this picture as a reference, he was asked:

Q: Did you look at these boards at all while you were in the attic? A: Naturally, I got glasses and I got to look down.

Q: Did you? Did you? A: What is that?

Q: Did you look at the boards? A: I looked at them, certainly, when I walked along.

Q: You had your glasses? A: Certainly.

Q: And you had your candle? A: Yes sir.

Q: Now did you see any board missing from this board to the board over to this wall? A: No, I didn’t see that.

Q: How long A: I didn’t see that.

Q: How long were you up there where you had the light, the natural light from the window? A: As long as I was there.

Q: Well, how long was that? A: Oh, about six or seven minutes. That’s all I need to see anything.

Q: Well, you had the natural light from the window and you had your candle, didn’t you? A: Right.

Q: And you didn’t notice any board that was missing? A: No, I didn’t notice any.

Q: Well, did all the boards appear to you to be in their place?

A: Right.⁸²

Clearly, this scored points for the defense. If the attic floor was intact in August 1934, then certainly rail 16 did not come from that attic. But did Miller’s testimony prove this, or was it just another example of how something might be missed if someone wasn’t specifically looking for it? Certainly, if Miller overlooked this missing board while in the attic, the same could be said about Rauch’s as well. Reilly eventually switched gears and had Miller testify about the Rauch basement:

Q: Your best recollection is that you didn’t notice any board in August, 1934, that was missing? A: Right.

Q: Now, you had been down in Rauch’s cellar many a time, hadn’t you? A: Right.

Q: Did you see any boards down there in Rauch’s cellar? A: Yes, I did.⁸²⁷

This testimony is extremely important, and I intend to show exactly why in the coming pages. In the meantime, Miller continued on this topic by saying…

Well, as you go down the stairs you turn around to your left and there is a room is off with a lock and key to get into them cellars.⁸²⁸

Miller added that “Mrs. Rauch is the only one has got a key for that cellar.” Reilly sought a better description of “two boards” he saw there, and Miller claimed they were “what I call floor roughing is roughing it is plain, ordinary wood.”⁸² Reilly showed Miller S-226 and then asked:

Q: Was that the board that you saw, the two boards in the cellar or either one of them, in Rauch’s in November, 1931? A: It is a hard thing to say if that was the board.

Q: I didn’t ask you if that was the board. I asked you if that was of the same general description as that. A: Yes. They were rough. That is what you call rough flooring. There was a bead on it. It is something like that.

Q: A bead on rough flooring? A: Yes, some of it have an L-lap.

Q: And were the boards that you saw in November, 1931, in Rauch’s cellar similar in appearance and description to this board that I show you? A: Right. It is about six-foot high, isn’t it?

Q: It is a little bit higher than that. A: Yeah.⁸³

S-226

Examination of S-226 itself is key in assisting us in identifying when it had actually been discovered and when it may have been removed. There are various notations written on this board made by police. The first set is on the “up” side of that board:

Removed from Hauptmann’s attic Oct 9th 1934 Det. Bornmann Arthur Koehler Oct 9, 1934 Det. M Tobin Oct 9/34⁸³¹

While I am not a handwriting expert, it seems obvious to me that this notation was all written by the same hand. Another set appearing to be by different hands is as follows:

__________ Chas Enkler 3833

__________

Oct 9/34 __________

__________

Oct-9/34 Hank A Cramer 6180 __________⁸³²

There is yet another lone notation on the flip (under) side of this board, which is not as clear as the others. To me, it appears to read:

Removed [from] flooring in Hauptmann’s attic Sept [??] [th] 1934 [by] Det Bornmann⁸³³

The third line is especially obscured so I cannot make out the day in September written there, although it irresistible not to assume it is the 26th.

Questions

Lloyd Fisher

On Saturday, February 2, 1935, Fisher attempted to telephone David Wilentz, to follow up on their conversation from the previous day about gaining entrance to the Hauptmann apartment.⁸³⁴ Fisher could not reach Wilentz and never received a reply. That same day, Fisher wrote in this urgent letter:

Imperative defense visit Hauptmann house this week-end. Plans made relying upon sworn testimony Bornman [sic] and conversation with you Friday. Don’t object to as many officers as you care to send with us. We want to make personal investigation and can’t see that Koehler’s presence would be beneficial to state in any manner, shape or form. If case ends as announced Thursday or Friday our last chance to visit Hauptmann house gone. In the name of fairness and justice, feel that every effort should be made to permit visit tomorrow morning ten-thirty. Wire answer to me care of Hotel New Yorker my expense.⁸³⁵

The next day Fisher received a Western Union reply from Wilentz:

Will arrange with you tomorrow morning for proper inspection by any wood expert for some day during coming week STOP Impossible to arrange for the time selected and designated by you.⁸³

Found among the trial testimony are several curious exchanges between Fisher

and Bornmann, involving the defense’s access to Hauptmann’s attic. Here is just one example:

Q: You are the one who holds the lease to the house in The Bronx, aren’t you? A: That’s right.

Q: You testified on the stand that the defense could go in whenever they wanted to? A: If I was present, yes.

Q: Oh, it had to be that you were present?⁸³⁷

Finally, Bornmann was asked if he ever accompanied the defense or Fisher to the Hauptmann apartment and Bornmann replied “no, I did not.”⁸³⁸ A document located at the NJSP Archives which was authored by Fisher best explains this exchange:

The refusal to permit an examination of the Hauptmann home. I repeatedly sought this permission and on one occasion Wilentz agreed that I should get in. I went to New York with Sam Bodine and John Schenck – one a lumber man, and the other a foundry man – whom I thought might by their very appearance, impress the jury. The State Police in charge of the house would not let me in. I called Schwarzkopf and Wilentz and they kept ing the buck all day and I never did get in. The first time I tried to call Wilentz, some one at his house answered that he was sick in bed with tonsillitis and could not talk. I threatened to call the press and tell them the whole story, and then he very promptly appeared at the phone, and in a voice as strong as mine, started to make excuses. The next week Wilentz agreed with me that before he left on Friday, he

would give me a written authorization to go in the house the next day. That night he left immediately at the conclusion of testimony, I was unable to see him and I couldn’t him all that evening.⁸³

After The Trial

The FBI

In early December 1935, Assistant Director E.A. Tamm received a telephone call from Ugo Carusi of the U. S. Attorney General’s office. Carusi called to inform Tamm that, according to a Universal News Service report, the “attorneys for Hauptmann” were going to…

…subpoena the secret records of the Department of Justice, in which they expect to find information proving that the testimony given by the wood expert in the Department of Agriculture was fabricated by the New Jersey State Police and the Department of Agriculture.⁸⁴

The Attorney General’s office was asked how he would answer two questions: “Would such a subpoena be answered, and, second, is there any such information in the files of the Department of Justice?” As to the first question, Carusi wanted to inform the Bureau that the attorney general “will answer that such a request is preposterous and he never heard of such a thing.”⁸⁴¹ However, as to the second question this presented…

…a different problem, and the Attorney General wants to know whether as a matter of fact information is contained in the files of the Bureau indicating that

the wood testimony in this case was fabricated and was not true.⁸⁴²

Unfortunately, as I clearly demonstrated earlier, there was information in the files to indicate certain testimony was not true.⁸⁴³

Trooper Frank Kelly

Trooper Kelly is most famously known as the fingerprint expert in the Lindbergh case. But what isn’t widely known was that he was the source responsible for leaking the crime scene photos to the press. Kelly worked out of Troop B in Morristown. Another trooper by the name of William Lewis worked with him⁸⁴⁴ and had previously mentioned to Kelly that he had “good newspaper s.”

Kelly then told me [Lewis] that he could obtain pictures of the interior of the Lindbergh home, showing the room that the baby had been taken from; the crib, the window and other pictures. Kelly described these pictures as being the only ones which were taken within the Lindbergh home since the kidnapping had occurred there.⁸⁴⁵

At some point, the men decided Lewis should attempt to sell these photos to one his s. A few days later, Kelly and his wife Millie drove over to Lewis’s home in Elizabeth and gave several photos to him. Lewis sorted out those he believed would be of the “greatest news value” and kept those pictures until after the child’s body was discovered, when he sold them for $150.00.⁸⁴ Lewis kept $50.00, with $100.00 going to Kelly, who was then to turn over $50.00 to “some other Trooper.” More disturbing is what Lewis later wrote to Governor Hoffman:

At the time Kelly first ed me about disposing of the pictures he also asked

me if I knew anyone in the newspaper business who would be interested in buying a photograph of the ransom note that was left in the Lindbergh nursery the night of the kidnapping. This was either March 3 or 4, 1932. I told Kelly then that, in my opinion, a photograph of the ransom note would be too hot for anyone to handle, but I would try to find a purchaser in the newspaper business if he wanted me to do so. At his suggestion I made with a representative of a newspaper who confirmed my opinion that it was inadvisable for anyone to have custody of a photograph of the first ransom note. In discussing the proposed sale of the first ransom note Kelly told me he would not accept less than $500.00 for a photograph of it.⁸⁴⁷

Despite this, a copy of that ransom note had been sold to the press. We know this because on March 11, 1932, a strongly worded list of questions criticizing Schwarzkopf was submitted by the Capital Press Pool.⁸⁴⁸ Immediately some individual organizations then sent word of for Schwarzkopf by disavowing or distancing themselves from it, while others attempted to negotiate themselves into a better position with him. However, Amster Spiro, city editor for The New York Journal, used this opportunity to get around Schwarzkopf by sending a message meant for Lindbergh or Breckinridge. Contained in this communication is the following:

Instead of this fencing between reporters and state police will not the family issue hourly or thrice daily statements to all the progress they are willing to disclose. While it is true that the Lindbergh’s [sic] may feel that the newspapers are prying too deeply into their affairs they must consider that the public has rallied to their assistance and is deeply interested in their plight. It is unjust to give the world false rumors and unfounded information. Disposition of newspapers is to print accurate information and only such things as are helpful. Journal has proven this by not making public contents of ransom note which is in our possession…⁸⁴

After the discovery of the corpse on May 12, 1932, there were even more indications of this note being in the hands of the press when it became known

that…

Several afternoon papers are planning on printing the original ransom note. In view of this and other obvious facts will you please release to us the note as it was left? We would appreciate an answer on this as soon as possible.⁸⁵

Schwarzkopf may have suspected a ruse designed to flush out the original note. He responded in a way which may have stopped any such release if the press had indeed possessed this note:

The ransom note is not available and the prosecuting authorities have classed it as important evidence and have ordered that it should not be made available to the press.⁸⁵¹

Despite this, several papers revealed the text contained within the original note as well as a description of the symbol. On the heels of this release, this question was among several during the very next group of questions from the press pool:

The Hearst papers would like to know whether you or Col. Lindbergh have any objection to our using or making further reference to the ransom note, now being carried in most papers. The question is asked for our own guidance and Mr. Hearst would like your opinion.⁸⁵²

Schwarzkopf responded as he had previously, but this time made clear the information they had was not coming from the police:

The prosecuting authorities have stated that the ransom notes are an important part of the evidence in this case and have instructed me not to give them out. The source of the information concerning these notes is not officially known at these headquarters and has nothing to do with these headquarters. No information has emanated from the police authorities in this connection and we will comply with the instructions of the prosecution.⁸⁵³

Then came this question:

Can we have a set of pictures of the interior of the baby’s nursery it is understood that these pictures were taken in the early stages and are now being carried by some of the New York Papers who state that they obtained them from the state police photographer.⁸⁵⁴

Schwarzkopf’s response:

No pictures of the interior of the baby’s nursery have been given out from these headquarters to our knowledge. Pictures taken form a part of the evidence in the case and are being preserved to be turned over to the prosecuting authority.⁸⁵⁵

About two days after these photos appeared in the newspapers, Kelly pulled Lewis aside.

…Trooper Kelly came to me, very much upset, and said that the Superintendent of the state police was making an investigation to find out who sold the pictures. Kelly cautioned me not to tell anybody that he had given me the pictures, saying that Col. Schwarzkopf was ing the newspaper and demanding to know where they had obtained these pictures. Kelly said he was afraid the newspapers

might mention my name to Schwarzkopf and that Schwarzkopf would come to me to find out where I got them. I told Trooper Kelly that he need not worry about this.⁸⁵

According to Lewis, at the conclusion of this inquiry, he ed that Schwarzkopf “accused some of the police officers from Jersey City and Newark” of being guilty of selling those photos to the press.⁸⁵⁷ What Lewis did not know was the Press did implicate Kelly:

Handing out news to favored papers is being continued up here and it appears Kelly episode is being reenacted STOP Called Alpine late yesterday concerning Elmer Johnson STOP No one would talk STOP Today Daily News prints story STOP Called Lieutenant Coughlin today who said to call Alpine STOP Did and no one would confirm or deny STOP Continuance of this practice will build more ill will for your department than ten girl suicides STOP This is personal not official complaint.⁸⁵⁸

However, it was shortly thereafter that Trooper Lewis, not Kelly, unexpectedly found his name listed among the troopers losing their jobs because of Senate Bill #369, directing Colonel Schwarzkopf to “reduce the personnel of the department” to conform the reduced appropriation made to the NJSP. All men listed were terminated, effective as of July 1, 1932, to comply with this requirement.⁸⁵

Dr. Erastus Mead Hudson

As seen in V1, Dr. Hudson worked closely with Trooper Kelly during the early stages of the investigation.⁸ According to Hudson’s daughter Margaret:

At the time of the trial, of course, my father did choose to testify for the defense, for a variety of reasons that have been recorded and into which I do not think we have need to delve at this time.⁸ ¹

The most well-known reason was Schwarzkopf’s denial of the existence of prints found on the ladder, along with his refusal to share with the defense that none of the prints matched Hauptmann.⁸ ² So what could any of the others be? In the winter of 1934, an article on the possibility of forging fingerprints was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.⁸ ³ It was in this article that Dr. Hudson said he believed fingerprints could be counterfeited by someone who may want to avoid detection.⁸ ⁴ Bearing this in mind, Governor Hoffman recounted something else that bothered Dr. Hudson:

It was Dr. Hudson who told me of the efforts of Kelly and other State Troopers to ascertain if, and how, fingerprints could be counterfeited.⁸ ⁵

Hoffman, it seemed, believed since none of Hauptmann’s prints could be found, that perhaps the police were looking for a way to “help the case along” in this way. His speculation was advanced further by what Dr. Hudson said next:

It was Dr. Hudson who told me of police disappointment that was ed when he said that he would be able to detect the difference, however, between real and counterfeit fingerprints.⁸

Hoffman also asserted that police often consulted Hudson, not only in the early days of the investigation but “particularly in the period immediately following the arrest of Hauptmann.”⁸ ⁷ We see one such example above. A clearer picture comes from Margaret again:

For quite a period of time my father worked closely with the New Jersey State Police, and I recall Trooper Frank Kelly and others whose names escape me having been guests in our home, on more than one occasion.⁸ ⁸

On one such occasion while at Hudson’s office, Kelly asked his secretary, Mary McGill, out to dinner. After, they visited the Hudson home. Mary asserted that, while there, Kelly let out a doozy:

…he, Kelly, said that they had framed the lumber in Hauptmann’s garret and hoped to hang the ladder around Hauptmann’s neck…⁸

This report goes on to say that Mrs. Hudson had heard part of this conversation “without Kelly knowing it.”⁸⁷ There were some other things Kelly was alleged to have said, as we will see. But it’s important to that, over the years, the word “framed” has been understood to mean only one thing: That rail 16 was fake or a replacement for whatever board originally existed. But as I will show, the term itself can mean any alteration from the original situation. So, there are various ways to “frame” evidence which is not always a completely a black or white situation.

William “Bill” Lewis

Private Detective Leo Meade had prior experience with this case while working for Prosecutor Hauck, so once his services were made available to Governor Hoffman, the governor quickly enlisted Meade. Former Trooper Bill Lewis was working for the Meade Detective Bureau out of its Red Bank, New Jersey, office as an investigator. Hoffman believed that since Lewis had already proven

himself to be trustworthy to Kelly, he would be the right person to approach him to inquire about the many inconsistencies, false statements, and suspicious circumstances which surrounded the case. It was believed that Kelly was the “weak link” and the best chance at securing the whole truth. On January 27, 1936, Lewis drove to Butler, New Jersey, to speak with Kelly. His wife had divorced him, and he had moved in with his new girlfriend and her family. Once Lewis made , he informed Kelly that his visit was made “at the request of the Governor and the prospective superintendent of the State Police” because…

…they knew that he that he had information of vital importance in connection with the conviction of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, information that would show that some of the testimony at the trial was perjury.⁸⁷¹

Lewis advised Kelly to go to Governor Hoffman and tell him everything he knew. Lewis assured Kelly he would be protected and that Lewis could “arrange for his visit in such a manner as to prevent Colonel Schwarzkopf from knowing” so that he would not be subjected to “any vengeful move that might be made against him.” According to Lewis:

During my explanation of this matter Kelly sat listening and apparently very much upset. He twisted his hands, held his head in his hands, walked about the room and became very pale and nervous. When I had completed my proposal he sat silent for a while and then exclaimed, “Jesus Christ, Bill, this is terrible; this is something that nobody can decide in a minute, what am I going to do?” Will they give me twenty-four hours to think it over in? Let me sleep on this tonight and come and see me here tomorrow afternoon. This has made me sick.”⁸⁷²

It did not take long for Kelly to make up his mind. He claimed that Lewis departed at 4:20 PM and that shortly after Lewis left, he called out for his shift, explaining that he needed to see Schwarzkopf about an important matter. Since Kelly claimed he was due at work in Newark at 5:00 PM, it seems he only had the exact amount of time allowable to make it there on time. Kelly then called

the Trenton headquarters, told Major Schoeffel he had been approached by one of the governor’s investigators, and was then instructed by Schoeffel to come there.⁸⁷³ Upon arrival, Kelly explained that Lewis had attempted to set up a secret meeting with both Governor Hoffman and Kimberling regarding the Lindbergh case. According to Kelly:

I asked what the proposition was and was told there was a lifetime job in it for me, as Col. Schwarzkopf was going out and Col. Kimberling was going to take his place and the wisest move I could make would be to see them (The Governor and Col. Kimberling) in regards to the case. As both Governor Hoffman and Col. Kimberling were convinced there was something phoney [sic] about the case and would particularly like to talk to me about the Nursery and about other things I know in regards to other men who were investigators on the case, I told Lewis I could tell nothing more than I told at Flemington but I would go over this matter and would sleep on it over night.⁸⁷⁴

Kelly claimed that Lewis specifically told him that once this whole thing was over, he’d “have a desk to sit behind and a Sergeancy out of it.”⁸⁷⁵

The next day an elaborate plan was put in motion, to record any conversation that might occur between Lewis and Kelly. This plan involved Lieutenant Keaten, and Sergeant Zapolsky, who were hiding in the basement, and Sergeant Haussling, Harry Walsh of the AG’s office, and a stenographer named Conover, who were hiding in a bedroom with a dictograph that had been wired and mic’ed to hear anything said in the attic.⁸⁷ Upon Lewis’s arrival, the two men went into the attic to talk. Here is some of that transcript:

Tpr. Kelly: If I did have anything what would I get by it?

Lewis: You would get a Sergeantsy [sic] out of it.

Tpr. Kelly: If you got a proposition for me what is it?

Lewis: O. K. I will take it up with the Governor.

Tpr. Kelly: Do you think this guy Hudson has been telling anything?

Lewis: I don’t know whether or not he is in constant with Hoffman. I talked to him with the one idea that he talk to you now and tell you anything, that is his permission [sic]. He told me, “I promise on my word of honor as the Governor of the State of New Jersey, that anything that man tells to help me will be appreciated.”

Tpr. Kelly: I have been half sick over the whole thing?

Lewis: He says that he has about 10 points that he thinks are phoney [sic]. From what I know I would say about five or six are facts.

Tpr. Kelly: What particular fact does he think of most?

Lewis: Some of the things in connection with the ladder, the thing that happened the first night. Something in connection with the bed clothing. In connection with the ladder he is convinced that Bornmann and Keaten put the pieces of board in there; also that the writing on the board that was found in the house was planted as after three days of people being in there, Bruckman found it. He may get the facts. I think that Bornmann either will help or his name is mud. If

Bornmann don’t come clean his name is mud. He will be out of his job so quick and I think Bornmann will tell what he knows rather than lose his job. When are you due in the office?

Tpr. Kelly: If this is a proposition of any kind, I could go and see him?

Lewis: If you want to see him, you want to see him secretly.

Tpr. Kelly: I won’t come down there and talk to him and tell him any more than I have testified to.

Lewis: He has the impression that you do know something and for reasons of your own you do not tell, he and Kimberling will do a lot for you, if you know anything other than what you told on the stand.⁸⁷⁷

I want to highlight something odd that Lewis said to Kelly: “…the thing that happened the first night.” What really struck me about this was that Kelly did not ask “what thing?” as I would expect if Kelly did not know what he was talking about. With this in mind, it is obvious to me that Kelly knew exactly to what Lewis referred.

Upon Lewis’s departure, the surveillance team packed up and went to see Schwarzkopf at NJSP Headquarters. Once he was briefed, Kelly, Keaten, and Zapolsky then drove to Attorney General Wilentz’s Perth Amboy home. What did Wilentz say? According to Kelly:

I was advised that I was not to go to the Governor unless I received official instructions from him and in that event I would be accompanied by Col. Schwarzkopf or a member of the Attorney Generals Office.⁸⁷⁸

This first thing I noticed about the dictograph transcript was that it started late in the conversation. That could be because as the men walked toward the attic, their conversation had already begun. Lewis’s version of events is interesting. He once again painted a picture of Kelly being “in a very bad physical and mental condition” …

I asked him how he felt and he said that he had a heart attack last night and that he had not been able to sleep at all for worry. I then asked him what he wanted to do. He said that he didn’t know what he should do, that he didn’t know what he could tell the Governor that he hadn’t said already but that he was willing to go where ever I wanted him to.⁸⁷

In this report, Lewis continued to describe his offer to bring Kelly to see the governor but that Kelly had refused by saying he had to be to work at 5:00 PM. However, Lewis’s report also reflected that he had been immediately suspicious of Kelly because upon his arrival to speak with him…

At the time I went to Butler at 2:00 PM and knocked on the door some man went upstairs and after knocking again Kelly answered the door and escorted me to the third floor. At this time it is possible Kelly could have warned someone that I had arrived and they could have been planted upstairs.⁸⁸

Lewis went to Newark and concealed himself near the entrance of the Bell Telephone building, waiting to see if Kelly would arrive at work. When he did not, Lewis called the Teletype Bureau but “the man on duty” told him that “Kelly was not working” that night. He followed this up by returning to Butler,

only to discover Kelly was not home and “not expected tonight.” In closing out his report, Lewis made sure to include “…no threats were made toward Kelly nor were any promises of promotion made or anything that might have been so interpreted.”⁸⁸¹

This game of cat-and-mouse would continue for days, with Governor Hoffman wanting Kelly’s information, with AG Wilentz looking for proof of a crime being perpetrated by Lewis at the governor’s direction. And so, despite Lewis’s suspicions, he continued on with his attempts at getting Kelly to go to either Kimberling or Hoffman to tell all he knew. It was the next day, on the 29th, that Lewis called him again. According to Kelly, he had a “member of the household” listen in to that call…

I told Lewis I could not tell the Governor or Col. Kimberling any more than the truth which I told on the stand in Flemington N.J. and he said the smartest thing I could do was to see them together or alone, I then told Lewis that the Governor was the Chief Executive of the State and if he ordered me I suppose the only thing I could do was to meet him, but I wasn’t sure and the whole thing had me sick.⁸⁸²

In Lewis’s , he left little doubt that he knew what was going on:

At 9:30 AM this date phoned Trooper Kelly from Trenton and talked to him at Butler 118W; told him that all arrangements had been made for him to talk to the persons in authority who desired to see him and that he should meet me at the Newark Tube Station at 11:00 AM. His answer to this was very peculiar. He appeared to be speaking as if someone was present listening and as if he might be reading something from a paper. He said, “Bill, I told the truth when I was on the witness stand at Flemington and I don’t know what I could tell the Governor that would help him. He is the Chief Executive and if he wants me he has the privilege of ordering me to appear anyplace at anytime.”⁸⁸³

Once Kelly did not show up at the tube station for his appointment, he called Kelly again to find out why he was giving him the “double-cross.” Kelly responded that he didn’t know who Lewis was “working for” and expressed fear that it might be a newspaper. He asked for something official from the governor requesting the meeting.⁸⁸⁴ The next day Kelly arrived at work to discover Lewis waiting for him. He evaded him and quickly made a phone call to Trenton and spoke with Lieutenant Keaten, who advised Kelly to see Lewis and that if a letter was produced to “try and obtain same.”⁸⁸⁵ Upon meeting Lewis downstairs, he produced a square card…

…which had printed on it as near as I can “State of New Jersey” “Executive Office” then in ink handwriting across the top left hand corner was written in ink, “Bill” Follow through investigation with K. initialed H.G.H.⁸⁸

Kelly claimed he asked for the card but that Lewis would not let him have it. He claimed that Lewis arranged for Kelly to come to Kimberling’s house the next day to meet with Governor Hoffman.

He (Lewis) told me it would be to my advantage to go or my name would be “shit” on June 8th.⁸⁸⁷

Once Lewis departed, Kelly again spoke with Lieutenant Keaten, who told him that the attorney general said that he “was not to see the Governor or Col. Kimberling unless I had an official summons.” Sometime later, an “anonymous” call was made to Kelly:

Unknown person phoned me at the office in Newark asked if this is Tpr. Kelly advised it was State Teletype Tpr Kelly speaking, the voice then said I had better

learn to keep my appointments or I’d get my fucking head blowed [sic] off. Had a very heavy voice. Hung up. I attempted to trace call with Supervisor #843 and was advised that the call could not be traced.⁸⁸⁸

Lewis’s version of events on this day were somewhat different:

…I showed him sufficient credentials to convince him I was truly representing the Governor’s office. He said that he was satisfied and asked what I wanted. I told him I was asking him for the last time to do as I had suggested. He then repeated his remark of yesterday to the effect that he had thought I was working for the newspapers and that I might try to get him someplace for the newspaper reporters to quiz him and that they could not protect him if he told anything. He then said he told the truth on the witness stand at Flemington and that there was nothing that he could add to it nor nothing that he could say that would have any bearing on the present status of Hauptmann. I told him that he could suit himself in the matter and that as far as I was concerned it was his affair from now on. He then asked me where I wanted him to come to see the Governor and that he would go tomorrow morning.⁸⁸

Lewis claimed that Kelly agreed to be at the state prison at 10 AM and left. The next morning, Lewis arrived about an hour early to canvass the area around the prison and quickly noticed Sergeant Haussling sitting in a “Ford coach” and “concealing his face with a newspaper.”⁸ As Lewis drove by, he noticed Haussling peek up and Lewis gave him a big wave to let him know his cover was blown. He then parked his car and proceeded to Colonel Kimberling’s house. About 15 minutes later, Haussling “drove by quite slowly and appeared to be scrutinizing the house and vicinity.”⁸ ¹ It became clear that Kelly was not going to appear, so Lewis departed for his car. Once back on the road, he noticed that Haussling was “tailing him” so he “took him into a traffic jam and left him.”

I think that this is conclusive proof that our Trooper Kelly has talked because it was impossible for anyone to know he was supposed to come to Trenton unless

he told them. It is, in my humble opinion, confirmation of our suspicions that he is in possession of vital information.⁸ ²

Lewis then suggested that ex-Trooper Codd speak with Sergeant Kubler and Corporal Leon “as soon as possible,” while he set up a meeting with another investigator “who might have reason to expose any irregularities.”⁸ ³

It was immediately after this latest missed meeting that David Wilentz decided, since everything was now out in the open, he would the governor. A letter was written and sent to him which read:

It is reported to me that a former Trooper, Lewis by name, has been representing himself as your agent in connection with your reported investigation in the Hauptmann matter. It is further stated to me that Lewis, in that capacity, has been threatening and intimidating at least one State witness. The coercive measures have taken the form of threats, as well as promises of reward and advancement, in order to have such witness change or modify testimony previously given under oath.⁸ ⁴

The next day, Lewis made four separate s. His first was to see Captain Carter at Troop “A”. Carter let Lewis know that Schwarzkopf made it known that he was working for the governor and had “verbal instructions” that Lewis was to be “kept away from the stations.”⁸ ⁵ However, Carter was no friend of Schwarzkopf’s and told Lewis he was happy to assist the governor. Proof of this is demonstrated by what he next told Lewis:

Carter informed me that Detective Bornmann had been sent for Wednesday morning and that the instructions that came were for Bornmann to be sent to Trenton at once regardless of what he was engaged in doing at the time.⁸

Lewis also wrote he learned “from another source” that Bornmann had been in “quite a hurry” to get to Trenton that day and that he returned the next day, citing only the “Colonel’s orders” as the reason.⁸ ⁷ Lewis’s next step was to Detective Ruggerio, who he considered a good friend and thoroughly trustworthy:

He says that Bornmann never discusses the Lindbergh case and is generally very secretive about it. Ruggiero is assigned to work with Bornmann. He will give me any information that he can obtain.⁸ ⁸

Lewis then drove to Vineland, New Jersey, and visited Kelly’s ex-wife at Shore’s Dress Shop, where she worked. She told Lewis that she was on friendly with Kelly and still heard from him on occasion:

She said that she was willing to do anything that was for the best in regard to herself and her child and that she was willing to go to Kelly and talk to him and ask him to tell the truth if he knew anything. I did not specify what Kelly might know but told her that he should for the good of his conscience and for the sake of his family come forward and tell the truth. She was very much agitated and wanted me to take her to Newark to see Kelly; I advised her to wait until Monday and that I would call her on that day. She said that Kelly had never confided anything to her in regard to the case, and that she had not been living with him since 1933. She recalled the visit to my home in Elizabeth when Kelly turned over to me pictures of the Lindbergh nursery. I did not press her on this subject as it was evident to me that she would not sign an affidavit if she thought it would harm her husband.⁸

This interaction led to a quick reaction by the NJSP. The report makes clear that Mrs. Kelly had been “molested by Ex-Trooper Lewis” in an effort to get her to accompany him to Newark and “help him to persuade Trooper Kelly to change

his testimony” at the Lindbergh trial. According to the NJSP’s version, Mrs. Kelly told police…

…that Lewis visited her at her place of employment and questioned her as to how much she knew or had been told by her former husband (Trooper Kelly) about the Lindbergh case and she told him that she knew nothing about it. He then attempted to persuade her to accompany him to Newark and see Trooper Kelly and help him to talk Trooper Kelly into telling more about the Lindbergh case to the Governor than he had told on the stand at the Hauptmann trial. Stating that if he did not do this, his name would be mud and he would be fired from the Department of the State Police. In fact that it was the Governor’s and Colonel Kimberling’s intentions to fire every man that worked on the Lindbergh case but that if Kelly went along with them and told them just what they wanted to know his job would be spared and he would be promoted. ¹

The reports went on to say that Lewis produced a card signed by Governor Hoffman, which authorized him to investigate. Mrs. Kelly also told police that Lewis told her not to phone her ex-husband because “his telephone wires are tapped” and that he was being “watched every minute,” because police were “afraid” he might “tell something to the Governor and Colonel Kimberling that he shouldn’t say.” ² Also reportedly revealed was something else that seemed to explain what Lewis meant when he referred to “the thing that happened the first night”:

He further told her that Governor Hoffman and Colonel Kimberling were particularly interested in what happened at the Lindbergh’s home on the night of the kidnapping, alleging that Kelly is supposed to have overheard a conversation between Colonel Lindbergh and Betty Gow in which Colonel Lindbergh supposed to have said to Miss Gow, “Keep your mouth shut or I will give you the kind of publicity you would not like.” ³

Lastly, Lewis mentioned the governor’s interest in “evidence which was

planted.” ⁴ Lewis continued to glean information from his state police s:

It was learned that many of the Troopers are talking about a small tree that was brought into court by the wood expert. Some of them remarked that if the defense had known it was “phoney” [sic] there would have been hell to pay. I do not know the value of this information but it is submitted. ⁵

Also mentioned in this report was that Lieutenant Smith made a “station to station tour” and “questioned each trooper individually” as to whether they had been ed by Lewis or “any other person from the Governor’s office” about the “Hauptmann-Lindbergh Case.” Smith ordered a “complete report with all the details” for any that had been ed. During these interviews, “on one or two occasions,” Smith told those interviewed that “we are going to get the goods on Lewis and have him indicted for bribery.” Lewis also noted that he was told that on several occasions he was followed by “Smith and two other Troopers” in an effort to “learn what persons have been ed and interviewed.” ⁷ Aside from the accusations that Lewis had promised Kelly a “Sergeancy and a job for life” and “directly threatened him,” other issues came to light. One was the allegation that Lewis was telling troopers that Schwarzkopf was “going out of office” and that it was “the Governor’s and Colonel Kimberling’s intention to fire every man who worked on the Lindbergh case,” a tactic designed to frighten the men into providing information. ⁸ Lewis had also approached Captain Henry Wooge to inquire about “the telephone number found on the door ,” about “doctoring the ladder,” the “Meaney case,” and also about the “petty cash episode in “B” Troop.” Lewis would later report back to Governor Hoffman that police knew about his interactions with Captain Wooge because “a member of the Detective Bureau” of the NJSP told him that “headquarters have had a “tap” on the telephone Trenton 3-1219,” which caused them to immediately summon Wooge to West Trenton after they overheard him on the phone with Lewis. ¹

Governor Harold G. Hoffman

Those who dislike Governor Hoffman’s investigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping have portrayed it as politically motivated. I have never found anything to that position, and I believe his views on this case are best summed up here:

One of the challenging things about this whole Lindbergh affair is the apparent determination to crush anyone who dares to voice an opinion that is contrary to the theory upon which Hauptmann was tried and convicted. Some day I hope the world will learn the truth about this whole sordid affair. ¹¹

On March 8, 1935, the NJSP returned the keys of Hauptmann’s former apartment to Max Rauch. ¹² Rauch then had the task of inspecting the apartment and created a list of repairs from all the damage the police had done. While there were a few repairs that the NJSP were held responsible for, the New York Police Department was given the lion’s share of the costs, including new shelving, replacing broken window panes and glass, re-scaping all floors, reapplying varnish, and repainting the entire apartment. ¹³ On a mid-October night in 1935, Hoffman went to the prison to speak with the man who waited execution by electric chair. This meeting set in motion the chain of events which followed.

Pauline Rauch (NJSP)

In preparation for the Court of Pardons hearing, Hoffman requested that Colonel Schwarzkopf hand over to his secretary William Lagay, the floorplan of Hauptmann’s attic (S-250). ¹⁴ Court clerk Albert Hermann also wrote two memos to Schwarzkopf on January 6, 1936, one requesting “the entire ladder,” including “rail #16,” the other requesting “all photographs and negatives” of the ladder as well as a “statement over your signature that these are all the photographs in your possession” that “have been taken of this ladder.” ¹⁵ However, on January 11, none of the questions surrounding the ladder or the attic were enough to sway the Court of Pardons, and they turned down Hauptmann’s plea for clemency. Shortly after this announcement, Wilentz received a request from Rauch asking for permission to rent the apartment. Wilentz instructed Captain Lamb to advise Max Rauch that he was free to do so. ¹ Only days later, Rauch explained to Detective Dickerson that, on January 8, a man offered to pay $40.00 for one month’s rent, but that Rauch’s mother became suspicious when he didn’t bother to look the apartment over. She accepted a $20 deposit, with final approval to be made by her son. Max told the detective that…

…this same man returned with a letter signed by Mrs. Anna Hauptmann, requesting Mr. Rauch to rent the bearer their former apartment as he was Richards last hope for life. The letter introduced the bearer as, Lieut. Robert W. Hicks, Washington, Criminologist and Ballistic Expert. This man also showed them a card introducing Mr. Robert W. Hicks which was signed by Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. ¹⁷

Rauch told the man he would need a couple of days to decide, prompting him to make his request of consent to Wilentz. Rauch added:

Mr. Hicks was accompanied by Dr. Hudson, finger print expert and another man who was supposed to be Dr. Hudson’s assistant. ¹⁸

One of Hoffman’s most controversial decisions was his stay of execution for Hauptmann, on January 16, 1936. ¹ As his efforts progressed, certain s from knowledgeable sources reassured the governor that he was on the right track. On January 18, he received a letter reminding him that a wood expert named Roy Knabenshue had asserted rail 16 did not match S-226:

When he says that the two pieces appearing in the photograph are not of the same tree – he knows whereof he speaks. I think it might be well to talk with him. He is with the State Park Division of the National Park Service. ²

It was around this time that Hoffman ed a wood expert who received significant media attention after being mentioned by defense attorney Ed Reilly during the trial in Flemington. Despite any assertion to the contrary, Arch Loney had declined Reilly’s request to assist the defense:

…the State’s wood expert has been allowed about two years to study and report findings as to ladder stop the time now allowed me is not equally fair to make intelligent investigation stop the fact of the ladder being dismantled and a certain rail taken to Hauptmann’s attic by a State investigator and matched to grain and wood texture instead of photographing comparisons leaving ladder intact opens inquiry for a combined lumberman and human analysist… ²¹

But this time, Hoffman’s call to recruit Arch Loney was successful. ²²

More and more information kept coming to the governor, which questioned this

evidence and suggested that Hauptmann was framed. On January 24, Hoffman received a letter from Alfred Ackerman, professor of forestry at the University of Virginia:

I have spent many years in the study of wood and lumber, and I have had some experience as a carpenter. I have read the testimony of a member of the U.S. Forest Service in the Hauptmann case. Without questioning the truthfulness of the witness, the testimony is in my judgement of little or no value in a court inquiry, however interesting it might be as a matter of conjecture, and I wonder why the trial judge allowed it be given. ²³

Meanwhile, on January 26, Hoffman wrote a letter to Schwarzkopf:

As Governor of the State of New Jersey I direct you, with every resource at your command, to continue a thorough and impartial search for the detection and apprehension of every person connected with this crime. ²⁴

Hoffman then issued a press release, announcing the details of his letter to Schwarzkopf:

I do not believe that this crime was committed by any one man, and there is ample evidence, direct from the record, that the chief witnesses and those who engaged in the prosecution share my belief. The fact that others are implicated does not provide an excuse for Hauptmann, but neither does it excuse any official from doing his full duty in bringing every other participant to the bar of justice. ²⁵

As stated earlier, on January 30, 1936, Governor Hoffman recruited former NJSP

Detective William S. Codd to assist in his investigation. One of the first things Codd did was Corporal Samuel Leon. Among the topics discussed was Hauptmann’s attic:

Leon states after arrest he made a search of Hauptmann’s house and noticed missing board but paid no attention to it as he was looking between beams under cat-walk (one of which is alleged to be rail 16) for money. ²

This information, if true, proves that a piece of attic flooring had been missing on September 20, 1934, during its first search by police. For those who believe the official scenario, this might be cause for celebration, and if there was nothing more to this, I would agree. But then again, Codd went on to say:

Leon stated he was with Koehler at Hauptmann’s house when missing rail 16 was noticed - ²⁷

Recall that Koehler was not in Hauptmann’s attic until October 9. So, what Leon told Codd is somewhat of a double-edged sword – that the board actually had been missing all along, but that its official discovery did not occur until Koehler was there on October 9. In February, Private Investigator Leo Meade spoke with Bob Conway of The New York Daily News about the case. Conway said:

The general opinion among newspapermen is that, though Hauptmann is guilty, many, many shady things were “pulled” by and with the help of Wilentz and Schwarzkopf and that the two are very much in fear that some of their sharp practices will or may be exposed. ²⁸

If Codd’s interview with Leon gave Hoffman any reason for pause, one would

expect the information that came from Dr. Hudson’s work in that attic would do so as well. On February 26, Loney and Hudson examined rail 16 at length. ² However, Dr. Hudson reported to Hoffman that he learned the holes in rail 16 “when superimposed over the holes in the floor beam” had “agreed.” ³ After reviewing the research done up to this point, private investigator Leon Ho-age offered to visit Hauptmann’s attic to see what he might be able to add. He wrote:

I have never seen a case of “faked” physical evidence – and I have seen hundreds of them – that did not defeat itself. ³¹

Meanwhile, like Wilentz before him, Schwarzkopf wrote a letter to Hoffman which included the allegation that:

It has come to our attention that persons representing themselves as your agents or representatives are approaching of the State Police with promises and threats. I feel it my duty to bring this to your attention. ³²

Once again, Hoffman remained unrattled. In fact, this seemed to bolster his position that there was something Wilentz and Schwarzkopf wanted suppressed. Hoffman’s reply was as follows:

The third paragraph of your letter reveals that you have learned of an incident that occurred a month ago when your “finger-print expert,” Frank Kelly, was ed by a representative of mine. This was done at my direction – although I have no knowledge of “threats or promises” – for the purpose of securing certain information that I believed to be important and involving an activity of which I am quite sure Kelly has not advised you. At what I consider to be the proper time I will lay the facts before you. ³³

On March 11, Ho-age arrived at Hauptmann’s apartment and was met by William Dillon, a private investigator who worked for Lieutenant Hicks. ³⁴ Hoage was shown the broom closet and the bedroom closet where Dr. Condon’s phone number had been written by reporter Henry Paynter. ³⁵ Ho-age then went into the attic and began taking measurements, closely examining a saw cut in board 26, directly in line with where S-226 was said to have been removed. Finally, he checked the nail hole depths beneath what would have been board 27. ³

Given what Mary McGill and Mrs. Hudson had overheard, the information coming from various police sources that alleged framing occurred, and the fact that other wood experts had voiced concerns about the wood evidence and testimony, Hoffman was unwilling to let the weakest link among those “in the know” slip through his fingers. Since the idea of using Lewis to reestablish was out of the question, he allowed George Warren to make another attempt to Trooper Kelly. Warren went to Kelly’s home and spoke to him. Although president of New Jersey’s Fish and Game Commission, Warren first told Kelly that he was “making the investigation as a private citizen.” Warren asked Kelly his opinion of the case, but Kelly responded that he “could not tell him nor anyone else anything more as what I testified to at Flemington was the truth…” ³⁷ Warren inquired if Schwarzkopf had ever told him not to speak about the case and Kelly said “no.” He then asked the trooper if he “was afraid of losing” his “job if he talked,” Kelly responding “[I’d] rather lose my job that way then to have a hand in any crooked matters.” Warren then asked Kelly if he would be willing to meet with Governor Hoffman, Kelly replying that he would have no choice “upon written order,” but “under no circumstances would I go without first notifying my Superintendent Col. Schwarzkopf.” ³⁸ After Warren left, Kelly phoned Trenton headquarters and spoke to the clerk. Minutes later, Schwarzkopf phoned Kelly and told him to immediately report to headquarters. Schwarzkopf and Keaten listened to Kelly’s of Warren’s visit, and once finished, Schwarzkopf ordered Kelly to make a detailed report. ³

On March 22, Leon Ho-age sent a report of his findings to Governor Hoffman, having made several discoveries he felt worthy of explanation. First, “S-226 had been cut at right angles with the edge of same – and did not taper in any

direction.” ⁴ Ho-age therefore believed the saw moving through that board secured to joists could not have moved in direction or slant as it continued into board 26. Ho-age referred to this scenario as a “miter box” effect. ⁴¹ However, when examining the continuation cut made into board 26, it was found that it did not, and the cut was “not at Right angles” as it should have been. Ho-age also noted that Koehler’s attic floor plan was not accurate. ⁴² This was important because Koehler’s Flemington testimony asserted it was.

[Wilentz]: Is this drawn to scale? [Koehler]: Yes, sir.

Q. Correctly and accurately to scale? A. Yes.

Q. Is this a correct and accurate floor plan of the attic at 1279 East 222nd Street, New York City. A. Yes. ⁴³

Why was Koehler being deceptive? Ho-age believed it was because it made the floor appear to be centered with 27 boards when, in fact, it was not. Once Hoage looked at his measurements, he found that the distances Koehler presented within that floorplan from both sides of the floor would have only been true if 26 boards were on the floor (with only ½” difference). ⁴⁴ The other suspicious find was that “none of the 23 or 24 Nails – were driven home.” He claimed that the heads “extended from ¼” to 1-1/8” above the face of the floor board Ex. S 226.” ⁴⁵

Meanwhile, Lewis, despite being pulled from any further inquiry into Kelly, had been to see former Trooper Jesse Souder. Souder had resigned from the NJSP to take his current position as the Cape May County Chief of Detectives and had some very interesting information concerning “who had fixed the ladder in the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case.” He told Lewis:

…that Detective Bornman [sic] had been instrumental in “framing” the rail and the ladder; that he (Souder) had been told by a party now in the State Police that this informant had said that if Schwarzkopf was not re-appointed he would go forward with the information but that he would not go at this time because of fear of losing his position. ⁴

Souder’s source was later identified as Trooper Watkins, as indicated in this message to Governor Hoffman:

See attached report – R. Souder – Watkins is still in S.P. Souder info came from him. ⁴⁷

Questioning Bornmann

On that same day, March 23, it was no coincidence that Hoffman ordered Detective Bornmann to meet him at the NJSP headquarters the following morning. He also wrote Schwarzkopf, asking that he have rail 16 available at the Wilburtha Training Station at 10:00 AM. ⁴⁸ On March 24, Bornmann was met by Lieutenant Keaten at headquarters and escorted into a private room where Schwarzkopf, Hoffman, Leon Ho-age and several others were waiting to question him. ⁴

During the interrogation, Bornmann pointed this out about S-226:

You can see where that went across the beams. It was still light there. You can see where it rested on the beams. ⁵

Just as in his Flemington testimony, Bornmann continued to assert he discovered S-226 on September 26. He claimed, on that day, he “pulled the board up by hand and broke off about nine foot” at the knot. He then claimed that police carpenter “Kramer” removed the nails. ⁵¹ Bornmann claimed this board was then placed “in the bedroom on the second floor.” Governor Hoffman asked:

Q …Who issued orders to have it locked up?

A. They did not issue orders to lock it up. They had Hauptmann’s more valuable possessions locked up. I just put it in there.

Q At that time did you really think it was going to prove as valuable as it has proven to be, or did you just put it nonchalantly –

A. No, sir, possibly took it for further examination, that is all, because it had cut nails in it and appeared to have been nailed down. ⁵²

The governor was not impressed. He also seemed interested in the saw cut in board 26. According to Bornmann, this was made as a continuation cut, supposedly as Hauptmann sawed through board 27.

The exchange below was the impetus for the famous attic visit:

GOVERNOR HOFFMAN: There is no doubt in your mind that that [sic] was part of the floor?

TROOPER BORNEMAN: None whatsoever. You can take that board up there to this day… ⁵³

According to Bornmann’s report on this interview:

Governor Hoffman then stated that he would like to see the board from the attic in its original position, also rail #16, and stated he would make arrangements with Prosecutor Hauck of Hunterdon Co. to have the boards taken to Hauptmann’s former home at 1279 E. 222nd St., Bronx, N.Y., on Wednesday, March 25th, 1936, at 10:00 A. M. and instructed this investigator to be present. This was later changed to Thursday, March 26th. ⁵⁴

The Attic Visit

Much has been written about this event, so I will focus more on the specific arguments, observations, and challenges made by Governor Hoffman and his representatives, as well as the answers and rebuttals from the State.

Arch Loney

* Loney pointed out that since the existing piece (S-226) was secured by nails to the beams and its tongue within the groove of board 26, that it would have been “impossible” for Bornmann to have “pulled” it “up at full length” without “breaking the tongue.” ⁵⁵ Koehler answered this by saying that many of the floorboards had shrunk enough so that tongues were now completely exposed. ⁵ Bornmann made the same argument and pointed to board 26 as an example: “The tongue on this board had separated from the groove its full length.” ⁵⁷

* Loney asserted that rail 16 was “heartwood” but that S-226 was entirely “sapwood.” Koehler responded by telling Loney he was incorrect and that both were sapwood. He demonstrated this by showing Loney other floorboards which had contained heartwood and “asked him to note how much darker they were.” Despite this, Loney did not agree. ⁵⁸

* Loney measured the “thickness” of both rail 16 and S-226 with a pair of calipers and pointed out that “the floor board was thinner in places.” Koehler agreed but suggested that thickness should be measured “near the ading ends of the two boards.” Koehler then itted the “rail was a shade thinner” but claimed it was “insignificant” because the lumber was “low grade” and hadn’t been fully dried when dressed. This, Koehler asserted, caused the wood to shrink “considerably after it was nailed down in the attic.” “Consequently,” he wrote, “slight variations in thickness would be expected due to uneven shrinkage.” ⁵

Leon Ho-age

* Ho-age began by questioning what he believed was the excessive number of nails used in securing what would have been board 27 to the attic floor. Koehler explained that this board was “undoubtedly” the “first one laid and it had to be fastened securely so the others could be driven against it.” Since both Loney

and Ho-age were working for the governor, they believed they were equal to everyone on the other side. As a result, much of what they said wasn’t measured or respectful – Loney, for instance, referring to Koehler as “an ignorant fourflushing son-of-a-bitch.” ¹ It was sometime during the nail discussion that Hoage demanded Koehler answer his question without looking at the floor. Wilentz could no longer contain himself and shouted at Ho-age, “I want to know for Christ’s sake who the hell you think you are!” He continued:

I’ll be goddamned if you’re to talk to Koehler that way. Who do you think you are to give him rules not to look? Who gave you the right to lay down the rules here? Who are you anyway and what are you doing here? ²

Ho-age quietly claimed he wanted to avoid conflict and deferred to Governor Hoffman to make his next set of points.

Governor Hoffman

* Hoffman pointed out that “by counting boards each way from the middle of the attic” there were 13 on each side “without the one from which the rail was cut.” ³ Koehler explained:

I told him floors were not laid both ways from the middle but beginning at one side and furthermore there was no reason why a rough floor in an attic should be centered. ⁴

Perhaps in his haste to respond, Koehler had forgotten about S-250, his floorplan which he swore under oath was entirely accurate. Wilentz obviously hadn’t forgotten. He moved to the center of the floor and began counting the boards. He

said there was “symmetry” with 27 boards because there were 13 boards on either side of one in the center. ⁵ But the measurements proved he was wrong. The damage had been done and Koehler mitigated in it the only way he could, by telling the truth and proving once again that he wasn’t beyond fudging facts if it suited his purpose.

*Hoffman next pointed out the saw cut in board 26. The governor was able to demonstrate that despite the cut through S-226 being made at a right angle, the cut in this adjacent board, the continuation cut, was on a “45 degree angle.” Hoffman explained that he believed board 27, as it was being sawed, would hold the saw cut in place “like a miter box.” Bornmann ed for this in his report as follows:

This was explained by Mr. Koehler and when the cardboard was placed at the right angle it matched perfectly with the saw cut on the floor board.

But this explanation was false. Koehler’s report explained it away a little differently:

I said the direction of the saw cut would depend on how the saw was held and pointed out that the cut through the first board was slanting toward the tongue edge, exactly the same as on the groove edge of the ading board. In this connection the Governor produced a piece of cardboard about 5 x 7 inches with a stick fastened to one end so that the slope of the saw cut could be indicated more clearly. This shows that this argument had been prepared for in advance. ⁷

As journalist and author Fulton Oursler watched this unfold, he observed that Hoffman was convinced this evidence showed proof of a frame-up, however, it seemed “utterly unconvincing” from his perspective. ⁸

*The final issue that Hoffman brought to light was the nail holes. He produced some swab sticks, using them to measure the depths of the nail holes contained in the floor joists which were supposed to have held both S-226 and rail 16, as part of board 27. As he placed these sticks within the holes, most did not reach the proper depth:

…the nail holes in the joists were not deep enough to accommodate the 8-penny cut nails that Bornmann said came from the attic floor.

Koehler repeated this test using a piece of wire, and the result ed Hoffman’s conclusion. Koehler, along with everyone else on the State’s side of the case, were baffled. The top of the board showed signs of the nail heads, which was pointed out to Hoffman, but he felt the nails could have been driven into a board anywhere to create that appearance. Koehler consulted his notes and saw that he had previously measured those holes on October 10, and all measured at 1¾” deep. He suggested the possibility that “they were plugged up.” ⁷ Governor Hoffman and Attorney General Wilentz then agreed that sections of joists containing these nail holes would be cut out of the floor for closer examination. Both sides selected three each, for a total of six samples, which were sent to Columbia University for analysis. ⁷¹

Bornmann, Hoffman, And Wilentz

At some point, Bornmann was brought downstairs by Governor Hoffman to answer for what had transpired in the attic. Wilentz accompanied Bornmann, according to Wilentz, to ensure he was treated fairly. Hoffman insisted Bornmann “tell the truth about that board.” Wilentz echoed this by telling him if something was “wrong” to say so and “get it over with.” However, Bornmann maintained his story, insisting he had told the truth about everything. ⁷²

According to Bornmann, Wilentz asked Hoffman if he believed “the board had been framed,” to which the governor replied: “positively.” ⁷³

The Loney Confrontation

After climbing down from the attic, Arch Loney found himself alone in the Hauptmanns’ old kitchen. As he stood by, he was eventually approached by an agitated Wilentz. Unfortunately, unlike Bornmann, Loney had no one by his side to ensure he was treated fairly. Wilentz made several derogatory remarks and “insinuated embarrassment” if Loney “continued his cooperation” with Hoffman’s efforts. ⁷⁴ (One thing I’ve learned from researching this case is that Wilentz was no stranger to threatening anyone who opposed him). What Loney did not know was that Wilentz already had the NJSP investigate him a month earlier. ⁷⁵ Schwarzkopf obtained information which revealed a criminal history: In 1928, Loney was convicted of ing bad checks while employed at the Loney Lumber Company in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ⁷

Columbia University

Sometime after Wilentz threatened Loney, all parties collected the attic evidence and went to Columbia University. There, in the presence of “independent observer” Lincoln T. Work, professor of Chemical Engineering, the men split open the joists. ⁷⁷ It was found that all but one hole was partially “plugged with fragments of wood fibers.” Once some of these plugs were removed, it was determined those holes would “accommodate the full length of the 8-penny cut nails after allowing ¾ inch for the thickness of the flooring.” ⁷⁸ The samples were then taken to the NJSP Training School.

Governor’s Press Release

That night, Governor Hoffman issued a press release, claiming that Arch Loney had given him a written report which stated that “the wood in the disputed ladder rail sixteen did not come from the board allegedly taken from the home” of Richard Hauptmann. ⁷ Also in the press release was the governor’s assertion that “calipers showed a variation between” the “ladder rail sixteen and the wood used for the attic floor.” Further points included that the floor was not centered in the context of 27 floorboards, and that S-226 had an “absolutely straight-cut,” yet the continuation cut into the next board “was at an angle of about 45 degrees.” ⁸ The nail holes in the joists were also addressed – that the holes were at proper depths but had been “plugged up with fibrous material.” However, Hoffman added a twist to this:

The defense maintains that this is indicative that these holes were made recently and not at the time the house was constructed. It was pointed out that the evidence of fibrous material shows the hole to be driven recently while clear cut holes result after a nail had been in the wood for a long period. ⁸¹

Over the next two days, Koehler, in the presence of Detective Bornmann, carefully examined these samples, and everything was photographed by Corporal Wilton. ⁸² Koehler microscopically examined the plugs and determined they were “made of fragments of wood fibers mixed with a very small amount of gritty material apparently dust from the attic.” ⁸³ There is nothing contained in this report that addressed Hoffman’s allegation in his press release regarding what these plugs meant. Meanwhile, Arch Loney’s opinions were solidified by his communication to Governor Hoffman on March 28. ⁸⁴ However, on this same day, a New York World Telegram reporter interviewed Dr. Work, who was quoted as follows:

Of course Mr. Koehler (Arthur Koehler, government wood technologist) still believes thoroughly in the testimony and considers that all this so-called new testimony and expert findings is a lot of bunk. That sums up my attitude. ⁸⁵

Dr. Work was not alone in his sentiments. Professor Alan Hazeltine, present in the Hauptmann attic as well as at Columbia University during the examination of the joists, rejected the governor’s press release entirely. As it pertained to the continuation cut which those in the governor’s party felt so important, Hazeltine wrote:

…I have consulted with the gentlemen on our teaching staff who has charge of woodworking instruction and who had many years practical experience in woodworking. He tells me that it is quite easy to saw a board so that the cut starts perpendicular to the side of the board and later deviates appreciably from the perpendicular. ⁸

Hazeltine also stated that he thought the cut itself was not at an angle of “45 degrees.” He further disagreed with the governor about the thickness claim, writing that “both varied up to about one sixty-fourth of an inch from an average value of three-quarters of an inch.” ⁸⁷ Finally, Hazeltine said he disagreed with the claim concerning the fibrous material indicating that nails had been “driven recently,” and that both he and Professor Work believed “that the fibrous material had been forced down into the holes by repeated probings with nails and wooden sticks…” ⁸⁸ In a separate letter to Wilentz, Hazeltine further asserted that he “saw no indication whatever of a “frame-up” at the Hauptmann house.” ⁸ After receiving Hazeltine’s letter, Governor Hoffman replied:

In the confusion that attended our visit, there were a number of important things that escaped observation. I am having some further tests made, and I am sure that the results will be very interesting.

Loney remained in the public eye, giving several newspaper interviews and continuing to assert that rail 16 did not come from Hauptmann’s attic. New information began to emerge that a carpenter named “Boyer” had “told him that

a 20-foot board was bought from National Millwork Lumber” yard “to Hauptmann,” but “after Hauptmann’s arrest.” ¹ This board, Loney believed, had been put into Hauptmann’s attic in an attempt to frame him. But unfortunately, in not heeding Wilentz’s warning, Loney’s criminal past was leaked to the press. ² Harold L. Ickes, United States secretary of the Interior, ordered an investigation. Despite this, Loney vowed to continue working on the board purchase angle of the case through “the man who knows who sold the board” and that a search for the “loading ticket” would be made. ³ Meanwhile, Ho-age and Hicks made further investigation of Hauptmann’s attic. Ho-age still insisted there was valuable evidence concerning the saw cut of “about 45 degrees” into board 26 in line with the edge of S-226 when laid on that flooring. ⁴ By May, Secretary Ickes’ investigation into Loney’s criminal background was completed and Loney was dismissed from his position with the federal government because he “falsified the federal form he filled out when applying for a job.” ⁵

In June 1936, Colonel Schwarzkopf was replaced as NJSP Colonel by Mark O. Kimberling. At that point, those working for Hoffman – Lieutenant Robert Hicks, Leon Ho-age, Dr. Erastus Hudson, and Square Johnson – would eventually have unfettered access to the lumber evidence. At the governor’s request, they had, at one time or another, all gone to NJSP headquarters to evaluate it – sometimes individually, at other times together. (The recently unemployed Arch Loney, however, remained in Washington, D.C., asking favors of friends and acquaintances, even borrowing money from Governor Hoffman).

Koehler’s Disgust

Koehler never got over the episode in Hauptmann’s attic and was quite rattled that all of his hard work concerning the wood evidence, particularly rail 16, had been questioned. He gave multiple interviews and wrote several articles, as well as pieces for the Forest Products Laboratory, attempting to prove his conclusions. One of his first rebuttals came just after the attic visit, and is filled with outrage and indignation:

Ignorance of the facts, prejudices, selfish motives, and publicity seeking have been responsible for casting a great deal of doubt & confusion regarding the Lindbergh case in the minds of the public. Deliberate attempts to discredit reputable witnesses and investigators, even to the point of hollering “frame up” have in no small way contributed to that feeling of uncertainty during the year following the conviction of Bruno Richard Hauptmann after the prolonged Flemington trial. It is astounding to what extent the public will attach significance to rumors and ignore sworn testimony of unimpeachable witnesses in court. ⁷

As with many of his published s, Koehler listed all the evidence he contended proved rail 16 had once been part of Hauptmann’s attic floor. His case appears quite convincing, but was Koehler “protesting too much?” It’s in the following handwritten document that Koehler seems to go too far with his narrative, outlining a version of events that we know did not occur in the way he claims. We know this because the information contained in the official reports contradicts it. For example:

When Detective Bornmann reported to Colonel Schwarzkopf that a piece of lumber seemed to have been removed from Hauptmann’s attic floor I immediately asked if cut nails had been used for nailing down the floorboards. He replied in the affirmative and produced some nails that he had removed from the floor. They were 8-penny nails. With trembling hands I proceeded to see how the size of these nails corresponded with the holes in the ladder rail which was in custody at police headquarters in Trenton. They fit those holes like pegs in a cribbage board! Colonel Schwarzkopf requested us to go back to Hauptmann’s attic the next day to see if rail 16 could have come out of that attic. ⁸

Thanks to the original reports, we know beyond any doubt that Koehler was provided these nails from the attic on September 29 and that he discovered they “fit” into the holes of rail 16 sometime on or between October 1 and October 4, completely unaware of the existence of S-226 during that time. We also know

that it wasn’t until October 8 that Captain Lamb granted Bornmann permission to take Koehler to the Hauptmann apartment. So, while the official reports corroborate Koehler’s claim that he fit the cut nails into rail 16, they also show he lied about and embellished the scenario and timing of everything which led to the discovery. Here, we have a document meant to disprove something which does the exact opposite by assisting to prove it– perhaps not in the way we might expect, but it proving it nevertheless.

Koehler went on to describe that first visit to Hauptmann’s attic:

Without appearing overly excited we entered the attic by climbing through the top of the narrow linen closet in the second floor. Nine nail holes were visible in the seven joists from which a fact [sic] of one of the floorboards evidently had been removed. Could the distances between any four of items [sic] correspond with the distances between the four holes in the ladder rail? I got out my notebook with the drawing of the rail and a tape and Bornmann and I proceeded to make measurements. Sure enough, as closely as we could determine with a tape. Four of the nails holes in the joist corresponded with the four in the ladder rail. [^] as indicated in my notes made over a year previously.

We know this visit occurred on October 9, and that Koehler and Bornmann did not go directly into the attic. If Koehler was as “excited” as he claimed, why wouldn’t this have been the first place they went, and why did he purposely omit this fact in his manuscript?

The next day we took the rail itself carefully wrapped so as not to divulge its identity, into that attic. We took four of the nails out of an adjacent board and put them into the four holes in the ladder rail so that they stuck partly through the rail and then moved the rail over the joists until the four protruding nail points sank into four holes I the joists. That correspondence could in itself be no accident.¹

So, while we know this return trip occurred on “the next day,” October 10, what we do not know is why, if they had been aware of the existence of S-226 on October 8, that rail 16 hadn’t been brought with them on October 9, instead of creating the need for them to bring it the next day. The answer is obvious, as is the reason why Koehler misrepresented the version of events in the way he did.

More Wood & Board 26

In the summer of 1936, a lengthy negotiation began between Governor Hoffman and Max Rauch, concerning money related to the damage in Rauch’s attic, from the removal of those selected joist sections. Hoffman assigned Ho-age to act as his representative in these negotiations, which Ho-age attempted to leverage to get possession of board 26 and more pieces of joists containing nail holes. As the talks between Ho-age and Rauch’s attorney, Hyatt Smith, began to break down, Hoffman communicated directly with Smith by letter. In it, he used a striking argument to try to win a settlement:

While I do not feel in any sense personally obligated to take care of the damages to Mr. Rausch’s [sic] property, inasmuch as he wood samples were taken at the request of the Attorney General and the Prosecutor of Hunterdon County (who is now in possession of the wood removed from the attic), I am anxious to have the matter adjusted amicably and I am placing it in the hands of Mr. Leon Ho-age who will shortly arrange with Mr. Rausch [sic] to have a competent carpenter make the necessary repairs.¹ ¹

Not until January 16, 1937 did Ho-age successfully negotiate a settlement for $200.00 and the additional pieces of wood requested by Governor Hoffman.¹ ² Finally, 12 days later, both Ho-age and Detective Bill Lewis made payment and secured two pieces of joists and board 26 from the Hauptmann attic.¹ ³ Ho-age

seemed both excited and nervous, as indicated by what he wrote Hoffman:

We have taken 10 months to get these pieces and they should be put into an exceptionably safe place. With half a break they will be valuable some day.¹ ⁴

Ho-age continued to worry about the wood becoming damaged and was particularly interested in preserving the saw cut. He continued to assert it was “at an angle of about 45 degrees,” still believing that cut represented valuable evidence.¹ ⁵

Leon Ho-age (NJSP)

Snook’s Report

After Kimberling took over the NJSP, he asked Russel Snook, now a captain, to review all the evidence in the Lindbergh case and sum up his findings in a written report. This report addressed the handwriting, wood, and fingerprint evidence, and appears to have been written in stages as each subject section was completed.¹

As it concerned S-226 and rail 16, Snook concluded both had once been the same board. This, he wrote, was proven by Koehler, who demonstrated that the “end grains showing the rings” of the two boards were “identical.”¹ ⁷ Snook also pointed to the “saw cut” into board 26, stating it was “exactly at the end of the attic board.” Other major points were that “ladder rail 16, Exhibit S-211, had at one time been nailed in the Hauptmann attic,” and “Four nail holes in ladder rail 16 coincided exactly with nail holes in the joists of the Hauptmann attic”:

The nails fit exactly into the nail holes in the ladder rail and the joists, when the ladder rail was in position as shown in Exhibit S-228. Also the rail was parallel to the other boards.¹ ⁸

Snook concluded that any scenario suggesting that rail 16 or S-226 had been fabricated could not be ed.

Assuming that false testimony had been given it is necessary to consider how

difficult it would have been for one or two persons to fabricate evidence, or testify falsely, without the knowledge of a number, if not all, of the authorities connected with the investigation and prosecution. Therefore, in following this line of reasoning it is necessary to mark the testimony and intention of many persons connected with the State as being false.¹

The Four Nail Holes

The existence of four nail holes in rail 16 was called into question by the testimony of Dr. Hudson:

Q. And did your examination at that time take into consideration nails, where they were placed, knots and nail holes?

A. I recall one hole made at that time by a square nail.

Q. And was there more than one hole at that time in rail 16 made by a square or a cut nail?

A. I can only recall one hole made in that rail that I saw at that time.

Q. Well, was your scrutiny of the rail such that if there had been four that you must have found them?

A. I would have seen them, yes, sir.¹ ¹

If true, this proves rail 16 was fabricated. However, there were several problems with this testimony. The first issue concerned photos of “saw cuts, nail holes, and cuts for cross pieces” taken by Corporal George Wilton on March 8, 1932.¹ ¹¹ These photos were used in court to show the existence of more than one nail hole in rail 16.¹ ¹² Since these photos were taken days prior to Dr. Hudson’s observations, this evidence should not be taken lightly. Another cited reason given for the existence of those nail holes came from Harold S. Betts of the Forest Service, who, on May 23, 1932, made an examination of the ladder at the request of the Department of Justice.¹ ¹³ It was Betts who assigned numbers to each ladder rail and rung, numbers which are still currently in use. In his report, he noted:

Side 16 has four rectangular nail holes made by old-fashioned cut nails. In the case of two of the holes at least the nails had been driven at an angle.¹ ¹⁴

So, while the report comes after Hudson’s, it cannot be argued that someone added these holes for the purposes of framing Hauptmann, who wasn’t even known to authorities at that time. Of course, the most famous of all photos used to prove these nails holes were never added to Rail 16 is the Springfield photo, showing the area which included three of the known holes in rail 16, on March 2, 1932.¹ ¹⁵

Rebuttal To Snook

Following Captain Snook’s report, Leon Ho-age was tasked with responding. He assembled all research done by those who assisted Hoffman at the Training School after Kimberling took over the NJSP. Ho-age created two separate reports

which contained agreements and rebuttals to Snook. One of the most important and surprising points was this:

…We would like to examine the picture of Rail 16, which Snook says shows there were – 3 – nail holes. If he is correct – the matter needs no further discussion. The case is closed without any argument on our part.

There had to be four holes or it was obviously a “plant.”

However, for the moment – we will concede that there were – 4 – holes.¹ ¹

This is important because the “we” referenced definitely included Dr. Hudson, who was among the group that examined this evidence at the training school. If they were willing to “concede,” even “for the moment,” that there were four preexisting holes, it should eliminate any doubts as it relates to this evidence.

Despite this, some of the other rebuttal points are worth mentioning:

• It was their position that any “lines” drawn by Koehler on Exhibit S-231 which show what would have been on the missing piece - between what was claimed to be between S-226 and Rail 16 - was “merely a product of his imagination.”

• They questioned why Hauptmann would have squared both ends of a board that was already squared on both ends “to start the article he was making.”

• Koehler’s floorplan was incorrect.¹ ¹⁷

• That, once Exhibit S-229 was enlarged, it shows the “saw cut is not a continuance” of the cut through S-226.¹ ¹⁸

Loney’s Investigation

In May 1937, Loney claimed he had spent the past few months further investigating what he told Governor Hoffman, investigations which led him to an important discovery. According to Loney, “a few days after Hauptmann’s arrest,” a salesman at a local retail lumberyard sold a piece of “1 x 6 22' T & G Y.P.” to a customer who seemed “nervous.” Loney wrote further that the salesman said this board definitely went to Hauptmann’s home, which Loney claimed as further validation “that the police floor board was planted.”¹ ¹ Loney would continue writing the governor with claims of having bombshell information, with requests for meetings and further financial . Hoffman replied that he was too busy to meet but was very anxious to have Loney’s report. In December 1937, Loney stalled, writing “I do not care to risk the mailing of my report and will hand to you in person as soon as I can afford the trip.”¹ ² The governor once again balked at a meeting but said “I can appreciate just what you say about “unfair and merciless publicity.”¹ ²¹

I believe Hoffman began to see what his association with Loney had devolved into. In so many words, Loney was asking to be paid for his report and Hoffman was not interested in buying. While Hoffman’s confidence in Loney’s abilities remained, what he now saw was a desperate man in need of financial help. By January, Loney used George Maines to request money from the governor on his behalf, another attic visit, and an introduction to Evalyn Walsh McLean, the Washington, D.C. socialite who had previously put up some of her own money for information leading to the Lindbergh kidnappers’ apprehension. Maines also teased part of Loney’s report, which included the following:

• That the board was not one of the original floor boards.

• That it was a different kind of wood and was nailed differently and had lain on top of the joist only a short time.

• That it was sawed by a left-handed man.

• That it was impossible for that “Police” board to have been taken up without breaking the tongue or groove and causing “Chinamen’s eyes” where the nails would have been pulled through under strain.¹ ²²

None of this was new to Hoffman. Not wanting to harm his friendship with Maines, he explained that he could not do any of what was requested. Almost immediately, Loney wrote several letters again asking for money and the relationship between the two men concerning the Lindbergh case came to an informal end. Although Maines wrote occasionally in 1939 mentioning Loney’s efforts, the governor merely responded by bringing up his Liberty article series.¹ ²³

The Governor’s Liberty Series

Hauptmann is dead. If some of his charges are true, that information may be locked forever in the hearts of those responsible.¹ ²⁴

Hoffman called rail 16 an “enigma” his position on the matter published in his Liberty Magazine articles. His first point was that the floorboard itself would have only cost “thirteen or fifteen cents” and it would have absurd for Hauptmann, a carpenter with “many boards lying around his garage and in his yard,” to pry a floorboard out of his attic. This, Hoffman pointed out, occurred despite his being considered a “clever criminal” – wearing gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints and stockings over his shoes to prevent his footprints from being identified after escaping Highfields with the Lindbergh child.¹ ²⁵ Hoffman echoed the position that Koehler used his “imagination” to connect S-226 and rail 16 via a “missing piece” between the two boards. He once again accurately asserted that Koehler’s floorplan was incorrect and attacked the number of nails used in board 27 as being excessive, regardless of it possibly being a toe-board. Hoffman’s main point concerned the nail holes in the joists which, at the time of the composition of his manuscript, he possessed. In some of these holes, Hoffman claimed:

The wood fibers surrounding the nail holes have not died, there are no signs of rust from the nails, and it is apparent to any one with an open mind that eightpenny cut nails had never remained in those holes for the nine or ten years that the flooring had been laid. Other nail holes in the beams, undisputed, present a far different appearance. They are lined with rust and there are no projecting fibers.¹ ²

Concerning this position, it is vitally important to know which nail holes showed what. To this end, Hoffman wrote:

It seems to me that the evidence is clear that the disputed nail holes were made by nails driven in the joists and pulled out almost immediately. When a nail is driven in most wood, I am advised, and immediately extracted, some of the displaced fibers spring back into place. I am convinced that this is what was done in making this nail holes that “fit” with the alleged nail holes in the kidnap ladder…¹ ²⁷

What he wrote above appears to answer that question, because only rail 16 was part of the kidnap ladder. While many of these joists that contained the nail holes still exist at the NJSP Archives, I have no way to or dispute what the governor asserted. Next, concerning the four nail holes in rail 16, Hoffman wrote:

I have in my possession a photograph of the ladder made the day after the commission of the crime. It is a clear photograph, in which the knots and grains are distinctly shown and rail 16 can be easily identified; but in neither the original nor in a copy magnified ten times can the alleged nail holes be found.¹ ²⁸

Over the years I searched the NJSP Archives for such a photo without success. However, it wasn’t until I read Frederick Pope’s of this photo that I was finally able to understand what Hoffman was referring to.

Frederick Pope

Pope always believed the floorboard evidence was fake. Part of his reasoning was Koehler’s claim of sawdust under where S-226 was supposedly sawed through. Pope called it “rotten evidence” and a “plant,” adding, “Draft, Hot Air Heat, Cold Air, Bugs, Rats, Cats, Mice, Worms remove all Saw Dust from any house.”¹ ² When it came to the nail holes in the joists, what Pope told George Hawke during his interview seemed to back up Hoffman. According to Pope, although all other nail holes in Hauptmann’s attic were found to be “oxidized and compact,” the joist containing “two square nail holes” under which rail 16 was supposed to have laid, “were loose and stringy” which he believed indicated that nails had been driven only a short time before the trial.¹ ³ Pope claimed he demonstrated this before the Court of Pardons, explaining…

…since wood fibers around the nail become compact, dead, and coated with rust from any nail that remains in the wood for even a few months, the interior walls of the joist into which the four nails of rail sixteen were supposedly driven should have been oxidized and compact.¹ ³¹

Pope claimed that while the of the Court of Pardons were impressed with this evidence, it was not enough and they would “not relent.”¹ ³² Concerning the photograph mentioned by Hoffman above, Pope claimed it was the photo taken “for the State the day after the kidnaping [sic] by a photographer from Philadelphia Inquirer” and said that this photo did not show four cut nail holes.¹ ³³ Although William Springfield actually worked for the Acme News Syndicate out of New York City at the time he took his famous picture, this photo was presented as evidence before the Court of Pardons along with those taken by the NJSP. There is little doubt that this is the photo to which Pope referred and solves the mystery as to what photo Hoffman was describing in his article.

A “Conclusive” Match?

One of the first aspects of the case I studied was rail 16. I think just about everyone who studies this case has been drawn to this piece of evidence, wanting to know what the truth is. Part of what I wanted to learn was if Koehler’s conclusions could be relied on with 100% certainty.

While I am focusing on rail 16 in this section, I must deviate slightly, to once again bring up an important observation. As noted previously, after his study of the “kidnap” ladder made at the State Police Training School in 1933, Koehler drafted a detailed report. In it, he wrote:

The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgement in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship.¹ ³⁴

I point this out because during the NJSP’s official review of the case (which unofficially began in 1976), most of the evidence had been examined. In October 1977, the NJSP made invasive study of the ladder by removing specimens “from each piece of wood used in the construction of the ladder.”¹ ³⁵ The entire ladder was disassembled and the “grain was examined to determine a possible common origin among the various pieces.” Once completed, this work, according to forensic chemist Alan Lane, “concurred with the work of Arthur Koehler.”¹ ³ In November 1977, Dr. West of Rutgers University was enlisted. He examined the wood samples removed from the ladder sections, however:

It was his opinion that without examining significantly larger specimens he would be unable to distinguish southern yellow pine from ponderosa pine, two of the three woods reported by Arthur Koehler as being used in the construction of the ladder.¹ ³⁷

In December, Lane “made a microscopic identification of the wood used in various ladder components” and found that the results were “consistent with Koehler’s findings.”¹ ³⁸

The laboratory report from this examination was as follows:

A detailed examination of the ladder, S-211 was made. Areas of interest were the species and origin of the wood and any additional information not originally reported. All findings concur with the reports of Arthur Kohler [sic]. No new evidential information was developed.¹ ³

This is a ringing endorsement and seemed to end all speculation on the matter. However, there was still that snag with Dr. West. In February 1978, Lane wrote that Dr. West “identified the samples from the attic floor, rail 16, and rung 3 as being either southern yellow pine or ponderosa pine.”¹ ⁴ This is shown in more detail in a different report, some of which is included there:

Rungs 3 and 10, plus rails 12, 13, 14, and 16 were found to be either yellow pine or ponderosa pine. A distinction between yellow pine and ponderosa pine cannot be made solely on the minute structure.

Dr. West of Rutgers University and the United States Forest Products Laboratory were consulted regarding further identification of the wood. They confirmed that distinguishing between southern yellow pine and ponderosa pine based on minute structure is very difficult.

No discrepancies were found with the original work on the ladder. No additional evidential information was uncovered in this examination. Reexamination of portions of the ladder, related tools and materials were omitted. A review of Kohler’s [sic] report was made. His procedures, logic, and conclusions are all reasonable.¹ ⁴¹

So here we see a movement from total “concurrence” with Koehler’s findings, to his findings being merely “reasonable.” Also included in this report is a rather important observation:

The quality of the workmanship on the ladder is excellent and not indicative of something produced by someone without wood-working experience.¹ ⁴²

This is very confusing. After all, they initially concurred with Koehler’s findings…

Another requested review of this evidence came during Anna Hauptmann’s civil action against the State of New Jersey. This time, it was from R. Bruce Hoadley, a wood expert who had been ed by attorney Robert Bryan.¹ ⁴³ After much legal wrangling, in March 1984, Dr. Hoadley requested to examine rail 16 and S226, which involved removing 0.5mm of wood from each to relate the end of one board to the other by cellular arrangement rather than growth rings.¹ ⁴⁴ Alan T. Lane, senior chemist for the NJSP, conceded there was “validity to that approach” if the two boards had been “adjacent,” but since there was a “gap of an inch or more,” he hadn’t seen anything in “the literature to substantiate that hypothesis.”¹ ⁴⁵

Lane’s notes clearly show that he did not want Dr. Hoadley to perform any invasive tests:

In this case Arthur Kohler [sic] has already proven to the satisfaction of the courts, myself, and every other competent wood examiner who has reviewed his work that beyond any doubt the two boards in question were once a single board. While there certainly are other tests that one may wish to perform, they will not add anything to an already scientific certain conclusion, and cannot with any validity prove that the two boards had dissimilar origins.¹ ⁴

Lane continued:

We cannot alow [sic] people to be taking souvenir pieces of the ladder. There is no evidence to indicate the wood is anything but what Kohler [sic] and myself

have found.¹ ⁴⁷

More of Lane’s comments on the proposed testing:

Before any destructive examinations are performed it should be shown that the examinations are recognized by the scientific community and that there is a good probability that new and useful information will be developed. His [Hoadley] proposed examination of the cellular arrangement of rail 16 and the attic board does not meet either of these requirements. Examination of the mortices or determining the species of the wood shows NO promise for developing new or useful information.¹ ⁴⁸

According to Lane’s March 20 notes, he believed resurfacing the ends of the two boards for cellular study was not a valid technique.¹ ⁴ He made it clear that, in his opinion, Dr. Hoadley’s request should be denied,¹ ⁵ and I have never found any evidence to suggest Dr. Hoadley ever made the desired tests.

At this point, I decided to reach out to someone I was sure would know whether or not a conclusive match could be made between rail 16 and S-226. I emailed various experts. Some replied; some did not. Most of those who did either referenced or referred me to Dr. Fritz Schweingruber’s book Tree Rings.¹ ⁵¹ I decided to email him directly and he wrote back the following:

There are two items: the wood itself and the question who put them here and there and treated them. To me it seems to be impossible to say more just from pictures. There seems to be several pictures – at least I saw and other one at Madison you sent me. A first expertise has to made with the wood in the hand under the stereomicroscope and secondly probably on the base of some invasive studies.¹ ⁵²

In 2005, Kelvin Keraga, “a senior project manager for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority,” released a very detailed report which documented his study of rail 16 in relation to the other wood in Hauptmann’s attic.¹ ⁵³ In it, he painstakingly reviewed all related evidence, piece by piece, and highlighted the report with pictures, diagrams, and footnotes. In the absence of invasive study, this is the closest examination one can refer to in evaluating the true relationship between rail 16 and S-226.¹ ⁵⁴ This report is a valuable tool, and must be considered along with every other piece of information found within this chapter. While I do not agree with everything in the report, much of what I do not is trivial in nature. But even if certain points or aspects can be called into question, that by no means invalidates the entire study, and any difference of opinion in one aspect should never cast aside the value found within the areas of agreement.

One of Keraga’s more interesting conclusions was that he believed his research “exonerated” Bornmann and Koehler.¹ ⁵⁵ Clearly, I do not fully agree with this, based on what I’ve revealed previously (and on what follows in the coming pages). However, any dispute over the exact hows or whys should never interfere with the actual study of the wood itself. Either it matches or it doesn’t, so the rest should be considered a separate mystery. This means that if the hows and whys cannot be determined, this should never be used as “proof” that the wood evidence does not match.

A Simple Observation

Ever since Hauptmann’s trial, the debate surrounding the authenticity of rail 16 has never ceased. Much of my efforts were made in the attempt to either conclusively prove or disprove that rail 16 had at one time been a part of S-226. It was during the earliest stages of my research, late 2001 or early 2002, that researcher Rab Purdy made an interesting suggestion on one of the various message board platforms. After examining the photographs of the attic scene,

Purdy observed that due to the electrical wires under the area where the missing portion of the board (rail 16) would have been, electricians removed the board. Unfortunately, this suggestion served no purpose for either side of the debate. It actually harmed both by creating a more uncertain situation of actual responsibility for the lone-wolf crowd, while also suggesting S-226 and rail 16 were a match, something which did not sit well with those who believed the wood evidence had been fabricated. And so, this idea was quickly kicked into a dark corner and left there to collect dust.

It was years later that researcher Kevin Klein appeared on the message board. As mentioned in V2, he is a master carpenter and Lindbergh kidnapping expert, who focused on the ladder aspect of the crime as well as other areas of interest to him.¹ ⁵ Without knowing anything of Purdy’s previous suggestion, Klein also suggested electricians had removed the board, and he was similarly met with the same resistance to this idea. He wrote:

My own belief is that Hauptmann did not go up into that attic specifically to obtain the board for rail #16. Why go to all that trouble when the garage is made from 1” material? I believe that board was removed prior and stored, perhaps in the cellar. It is very possible that Hauptmann was never even aware of it’s origin. I know I have been “shut down” whenever I bring up the electrical wire installation, but I think it is a good bet. Looking at a photo I recently obtained of 16 and S-226 in place I saw below them what I suspected all along. The top wall plate was visible and is directly below where rail 16 was located. That plate, located at the top of a wall, would provide the means for an electrician to snake his wires down the wall. It is also quite common for this to be required after plastering as a new electrical fixture or outlet is desired.¹ ⁵⁷

He further explained:

The possible reason for the removal of the section of floorboard which became rail#16 that I suggest is due to the need to run electrical cable down the wall

which runs parallel and directly underneath that floorboard. I was not absolutely sure about the location of that wall and only suspected it due to the lapping of the floor joists. Now with a better picture I could clearly see the top plate or 2”x4” which runs under the floor joists. An electrician needing to run a line into that wall would remove that part of the floorboard and then drill through the plate thus gaining access to a wall cavity. In an unfinished attic this procedure would be used both before and after plastering the living area wall/ceiling surfaces.¹ ⁵⁸

Because this theory is so vital to the solution of this particular mystery, it’s important to include all his observations. Here is another:

The most compelling aspect of the floorboard removal is still the location of that starter board in relation to the second floor wall. I don’t know how accurately one can date the attic floor installation relative to the rough electrical installation, but even if the floor pre-dates the initial electric work there could be many reasons for a later need to access that wall from the top via the attic. I see it happen all of the time.¹ ⁵

In summation:

The theory is simply this; the attic board which would become the famous rail #16 was removed prior to and without connection to the building of the ladder. This was done by someone, most probably an electrician, in order to access the second floor wall which lies directly below and runs parallel to the floorboard. After removal the board may have ended up in the basement of the Raush [sic] house with other wood scraps. Hauptmann would have used this board to fabricate rail #16 without the knowledge of its origin.¹

It was at some point during these discussions that I met Klein at the NJSP

Archives to look over both S-226 and rail 16. He suggested that we might find something interesting which could either or harm the theory. His observations during this trip were:

I make the proposition that it was due to the need of the electricians to gain access to the wall lying directly below that board. It has been my experience that electricians and other mechanical subs often remove material than is warranted by the actual need. It is one of those situations where it simply makes their job easier. Also that in those days BX metallic cable was commonly used. That is not as easy to feed and bend, so ample working space is desirable.

Another observation, when I examined s-226 and rail 16 it was evident that no shadowing was present on the rail while faint lines could be seen on s-226. That is odd as typically a floor board nailed in place for a period of time will clearly show the outline of the joists it was nailed to and rail 16 should have had them. That is especially true for an attic with no insulation as the airborne dust and soot particles usually are present and darken the exposed underside of the board except where the joists shield it. Of course rail 16 was handled and exposed, but still I would expect to see some remnants of the joist locations on it.¹ ¹

Although done unintentionally, when testifying about the scenario surrounding S-226 when in place on the attic floor, there was something that Arthur Koehler said in Flemington that backs up this theory:

[Koehler]: Furthermore, there was sawdust on the lath and plaster of the ceiling below, right underneath the end of this board. Furthermore, this board projects over the joist. Now, a carpenter wouldn’t let the end of a board lap over like that and hang free, he would put the t right on the joists there, which also indicates that that [sic] was not the original condition.¹ ²

Of course, there was the obvious too: The idea that anyone, most especially a carpenter, would climb into their attic with the intent to cannibalize the floor for a piece of wood strains credibility. Even more, entry into the attic was especially difficult and cumbersome. This was because one had to enter a closet and remove all shelves to make room for the ascent. Then, to climb up, one could either use a ladder or the shelf cleats to hoist oneself in. Hauptmann was then supposed to have removed it from the knotty toe-board, secured in place by 24 nails.¹ ³ This was among the many reasons why Lloyd Fisher believed that evidence was fabricated.¹ ⁴ In fact, Fred Pope wrote that this evidence was “… the crudest, most ignorant Frame-up in History.”¹ ⁵ Once considering the supposed scenario, it is very easy to understand why so many would see it this way.

Just before the trial, in early December, Hauptmann had a conversation with his lawyer, Lloyd Fisher, in the Flemington Jail. Trooper Stockburger was one of the men assigned to eavesdrop on any of these conversations then report back to the state police and prosecutors. Stockburger reported it was a brief conversation of only “5 minutes.” By now, Fisher had been tipped off that his conversations were being listened to.¹ To be safe, Fisher whispered a great deal and Stockburger could sometimes not him make out. However, he was able to hear this exchange:

Fisher: Richard, I read a story in the paper today where the State claims that they found a piece of wood in your house which fits with parts of the ladder.

Hauptmann: Hauptmann laughed saying: It’s impossible, that’s a lot of nonsense.

Fisher: I didn’t believe it. Reilly will be here tomorrow afternoon…¹ ⁷

Considering the State’s scenario, if Hauptmann had truly removed that board,

one would expect a drastically different reaction, even if it had been a simple denial. We see here that while Hauptmann was laughing this off in December, it was no longer so ridiculous or “impossible” by the end of the trial. During his interview with Governor Hoffman, Hauptmann said:

“Is it not unbelievable,” he asked, “dot to make von for the ladder, out of six, I vould haf from the floor in my own house tear up von of the boards?”¹ ⁸

More interesting points that he raised:

If I vanted to make a ladder, could I not get around my yard and around my garage all the vood like this this dot I vould need? I haf lots of boards like dot. Besides, only about von block from my house is a lumber yard vhere for a few cents I could buy such a board.¹

He later told Fisher that it was “unbelievable” to think he would do this when there were “…any number of pieces of wood laying about his house and garage.”¹ ⁷ Hauptmann also believed it “absurd” to think a man who prepared for a crime like this, to include building a ladder, would “be short one of the most important pieces of lumber necessary to its completion.”¹ ⁷¹ These statements bolster the idea that electricians did remove rail 16. They also harm Hauptmann’s defense, giving us a window into his mind: If he planned to build this ladder, then he already had collected and assembled the pieces needed. His comments tell us they were most likely laying around the garage or left-over scraps in the basement. Where else, after all, would pieces be found “in his house?” Since we already know there were left-over pieces in that basement, it is easy to see.

But what evidence do we have in the files that suggests this may have actually happened?

Tobias “Max” Rauch

Max Rauch and his mother Pauline tly owned the house where the Hauptmanns rented. During his first interview with police, Rauch said Hauptmann was not among his favorite people. It was learned that Hauptmann made several complaints, gave him a lot of “inconvenience,” and “insulted” his mother “several times.”¹ ⁷² On the last occasion, Hauptmann refused to pay the rent and the matter was taken to court. According to Rauch, once the other apartment was rented to the Schusslers, he became close friends with Hauptmann. Rauch credited this friendship to the fact that Schussler asked for a month’s concession on the rent, claiming this request was instigated by Hauptmann, a fact which clearly added to his list of grievances against him. Rauch was asked if he ever saw Hauptmann “making any ladders,” but claimed he hadn’t been home “enough” to say. However, he did see him bring home “small pieces of lumber” which were kept in the garage.¹ ⁷³

As previously noted, it wasn’t until October 11 that Rauch was interviewed about the attic flooring. Four days later, Detective Bornmann again interviewed Rauch, telling him that the lumber in question was “1 x 6 N.C. roofing which was used as flooring in the attic.”¹ ⁷⁴

He could not locate the receipt at this time but stated he distinctly ed the flooring being put in as same had been put in after the house had been completed. He had to pay extra for same and had argued with the contractor about it. He also reiterated the statement made on October 11th that he had personally inspected the attic floor about two weeks prior to Hauptmann moving in and that the flooring therein had been intact.¹ ⁷⁵

If one were to stop researching right here, it would seem this alone would prove

that Hauptmann must have taken this board from his attic. In fact, the history of this whole entire case has been altered by previous authors who have researched to a certain point and stopped short. Time is certainly one factor for this. But finding what one is looking for could be another. But it can be quickly learned by continuing the search that one report may not conclusively prove a fact. During Bill Lewis’s investigation on behalf of the governor, he not only sought out current troopers with connections to the case, but former troopers, like himself, who did – a sound strategy if one is looking to uncover new or suppressed information. Lewis was able to track down former Trooper James McTighe, who, by that time, was an investigator for the New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control. While employed by the NJSP, McTighe had been assigned to the Rauch house from sometime in late December until a “few days after the trial.”¹ ⁷ According to the report:

Max Rausch [sic] at one time told MacTighe [sic] that if Hauptmann cut a board out of the floor of the attic to use in the ladder he or his mother would have heard the noise.¹ ⁷⁷

In the meantime, Lewis and others assisting the governor were still being watched, police taking interest in who Lewis was interviewing, as seen in this memo:

Lewis has been here twice, but, both times I was out. An investigator from the Governor’s office was down to see Jimmy McTighe and took a statement from him as to what took place in Hauptmann’s home while he was guarding same with Trp. Englestadder.¹ ⁷⁸

This begs the question: If Rauch believed the attic floor had been intact prior to Hauptmann moving in, what was his explanation for part of a board’s removal if he did not believe it was Hauptmann who removed it?

The idea of the electricians being somehow involved with the removal of this board was brought up at trial during Rauch’s testimony. However, before getting into that exchange, it is important to see something Rauch testified to first:

[Peacock]: Who constructed your house?

[Rauch]: Well, I was the contractor myself, but the carpenter work was done by Oscar Koski.¹ ⁷

While we know that Koski did the carpenter work, we also know that Rauch was not the actual contractor. According to both Koski and Lewis Graves, Graves was the contractor, as shown here:

Dear Sir:

I have a frame house to build at 222nd Street and Needham Avenue in the Bronx. If you would be interested in the carpentry work on this I would be glad to have you call to get a set of plans. I suggest you call by telephone to make sure that I am in before making the trip to Grand Central.

Yours very truly, Lewis W. Graves¹ ⁸

So why did Rauch testify to something like this when it was not true, and when both police and state prosecutors were fully aware this was untrue? Why did they allow him to testify in this way? The only explanation I can see is that the

“Standard Form of Subcontract” listed Rauch as both “Owner” and “Contractor” while merely listing Graves as the “Architect.” Perhaps this is what gave Rauch an “out” by not calling attention to the fact that Graves was the actual contractor. In fact, it was Graves himself who prepared the contracts and made sure they were signed by both parties. One example:

Dear Mr. Rauch:

I am enclosing herewith two copies of a plaster and stucco contract with Mr. Militana. Please sign both and return to me and I will forward them to Mr. Militana for his signatures, he will sign them and return one to this office the same to be delivered to you.

Yours very truly, Lewis W. Graves¹ ⁸¹

Fred Pope pointed something out during cross-examination which sounds similar to the observations of Purdy & Klein:

Q: And where the piece of flooring seems to be missing from the end of this piece to the wall, was there ever a board there to your knowledge?

A: The entire strip that belonged to it.

Q: Well, wasn’t that left off so that the electric light cable could be carried down there?

A: Yes, but not on that side. The electric cable goes in down there, that is, through that board.

Q: Here is where the electric cable goes down isn’t it?

A: Yes.

Q: And wasn’t that left loose there?

A: Well, that is what they call the preliminary work from the electrician down there. It was down there before, the boards came afterwards.

Q: And was not the board left out at that place because of the cable going down?

A: No, sir.

Q: So you wouldn’t have to notch the cable or beams?

A: I will explain to you; the beams on there were drilled in circles, when that BX cable was pulled through down there and the electrician was completely finished when those boards came in afterwards.¹ ⁸²

Lewis Graves Letterhead (NJSP)

Louis Rauch

Louis Rauch, a taxi driver employed by the Signal Transportation Company, was interviewed by Special Agent Wright. He told Wright that he visited his mother Pauline at the house where the Hauptmanns rented “two to three times per week.”¹ ⁸³ While there, he said he noticed the friendship between Schussler and Hauptmann. During one visit, Rauch parked his taxi behind an old sedan with New Jersey plates. Louis said he noticed Hauptmann taking special interest in his cab and came down from the apartment twice to examine it closely. He claimed that a man came down from the Hauptmann apartment and left in the sedan. He also claimed that his mother had trouble with Hauptmann concerning “hot water” issues and “the noise of the Hauptmanns’ child, etc..”¹ ⁸⁴

Louis Rauch was re-interviewed on December 8, 1934 by Sergeant Zapolsky, concerning the car he discussed with Agent Wright. He told Zapolsky…

…that sometime in July 1934, while he visited his mother at 1279 East 222nd St., he observed a sedan with New Jersey Registration, parked in front of the house. He parked his cab in back of it and went into his mother’s house where he had remained for some time and while there he observed Hauptmann coming out of his apartment and looking into his cab, 3 times; that about 10 or 15 minutes after Hauptmann had looked into his cab the 3rd time, a man came out of Hauptmann’s apartment, got into the New Jersey car and drove away, waving good bye at Hauptmann who was apparently watching from their apartment window.¹ ⁸⁵

Pauline Rauch

A story ran in the Southern Israelite which claimed that…

…Mrs. Rauch, Hauptmann’s landlady, declares that he hated her and she reported incidents indicating him to be a Jew-hater. Mrs. Hauptmann repudiated an attorney she hired to defend Hauptmann when the lawyer turned out to be a Jew. She said “Jews can’t be trusted.”¹ ⁸

There was another revelation concerning Mrs. Rauch, which became known through Bill Lewis’s interview with former Trooper James McTighe. According to McTighe, during a conversation with both Max and Pauline Rauch, they told him that “about the night of the kidnapping” and “positive[ly]… on March 1st”:

Mrs. Rausch [sic] heard conversation, coming from upstairs where the Hauptmanns lived, between two men. She could not hear all the words said but heard one of them say that it was very hard to make a living nowadays. Then immediately something was said in German referring to a fire. Mrs. Rausch [sic] told Max about it as soon as he came home because she was afraid that they were talking about burning the house to collect insurance and that is how she re the time and date. A Max Sloffenberg is one of the men who was talking and Mrs. Rausch [sic] is certain that the other was Hauptmann.¹ ⁸⁷

Information like this would have been extremely helpful to the defense had they been aware of it before the trial. But while the date of the event could be questioned, is there any doubt that Mrs. Rauch heard what she claimed? I use this to show, with the other information, that there is clear evidence that sawing a board in the attic would have been heard, just as Max Rauch told Trooper McTighe.

Oscar Koski

To learn more about the attic floor police visited the contractor Lewis Graves, who had all of the information about the house and its construction. Police visited him at the office of “Graves and Quinn” at the “Grand Central Terminal.”¹ ⁸⁸ Graves told police that he hired Oscar Koski for the construction of the Rauch home on November 21, 1925 and turned over all of the relevant documentation which included “plans, specifications, contracts, and all communication including estimates, etc.” Police had also tracked down Oscar Koski, who told them he had been subcontracted by Graves to “furnish the labor for the carpenter work on the house” and that it was finished “about the first part of 1927.”¹ ⁸ Koski explained that the attic floor had been laid by “himself” and “2 Fins” he had working for him. Koski further told investigators…

…that they laid a runway in the center of the attic at which place there is the most headroom and to the best of his recollection it was about 4 or 5 feet wide. This was made out of rough flooring lumber 1 x 6.¹

Police noted that due to the amount of time that had past, these were the only details Koski could recall at this time.

On January 2, 1935, police picked up Koski then brought him to the Rauch home. Koski, along with Max Rauch, Arthur Koehler, and E. M. Davis of the Forest Products Laboratory, climbed into the attic and Koski examined the floor.

Koski identified the flooring of the attic as being laid under his supervision. He also stated that these boards would probably be the same approximate length,

size 1 x 6 x 22”, that they were purchased from the Church Gates Lumber Company at Westchester Square sometime during the period of time that the house was under construction, which was from November of 1925, until sometime about the middle of 1927. The flooring in the attic consists of 27 boards, the approximate width of 12 feet.¹ ¹

Koski said he used cut nails “because they would draw the flooring together better.”

At first Koski was under the impression that a narrow strip of the floor about 4 or 5 feet wide was laid in the attic and it was later widened, but on inspection of the floor in the attic he decided that the floor was all laid at one time.¹ ²

This report explains that there was “considerable discussion” between Rauch and Koski and it was agreed that Koski had purchased the lumber from “Church E. Gates Company.”

It was also agreed between Mr. Rauch and Mr. Koski that the attic floor lumber was bought separately and was laid after the house was up but before the house was plastered. Mr. Rauch said the first loan on the house was made in July 1926, which means that the walls must have been up at that time.¹ ³

This information is very important. For one, it means that the house being “up” does not mean the house was “finished.” We see from the above report that the sequence of events was that the house was up, after which the attic floor was laid, then the plastering began.

Although Koski did not testify, he was asked to be available for the Prosecution

and was paid for “5 days loss of wages @ $8.00 per day” as well as for meals, subway and “railroad fare, New York to Trenton & return.”¹ ⁴ Around this time Koski made a pre-trial preparation statement. Here is part of it:

Q: You supervised the construction of the attic floor – You know the floor was built from one side to another, leaving a certain space on each side? A: Yes Sir.

Q: Now when you built it there were no boards missing? A: No sir. There was a straight line all the way through.

Q: This side was left open over here – Slant over this side was left open and on the other side? A: Yes sir.

Q: Did you see it later or when the board was missing? A: Yes.

Q: When was that? A: About three weeks ago they took me over the house. I saw one piece of board missing.

Q: That piece that was missing – that piece was put down at the time you built the floor?

A: Yes Sir.¹ ⁵

This is interesting. By the time Koski went to the house to inspect the floor, he saw a “piece of board” missing and not an entire board. Was S-226 still laying on that attic floor by that late date or had it been “brought back” and placed there on this occasion so he could see the situation as it had existed when it was supposedly discovered by police?

Lewis W. Graves

During the previous interview with the contractor, Detective Patterson was able to get all the documents related to the construction of the Rauch home, except for the purchase orders for the material by Koski. However, Patterson was able to use the information obtained by both Koski and Lewis in order to track those bills down as well.¹ Is there anything found among all this material which could assist us in learning when the attic floor was laid?

In evaluating the contract dated “April 15, 1926” which Koski signed, the first important part I found was located in Section 3:

House to be closed in with roof complete and ready for lath five weeks after foundations are ready for sills. Carpenter work is to be completed four weeks from the time plaster work is ready for trim.¹ ⁷

The relevant purchases Koski made are:

*May 3: 2100 FT 1x6 N C RFG

*June 5: 1000 FT 1x6 N C RFG 14 SQ (28 BU) Blue Black Strip Shingles

*June 7: 250 FT 1x6 N C RFG

*August 31: 72 FT 1x6 N C RFG¹ ⁸

Based on the invoices, the roof appears to have been completed sometime in June. Apart from the August 31 purchase, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, an invoice sent to Rauch by Graves on July 20 sought payment for all items related to the roofing such as “chimney labor and scaffold,” “roof paper under shingles,” and “6 sq. ft. copper flashing.”¹ On August 7, Graves wrote Koski:

When I last saw the house at 222nd Street, no provision had been made for ironing boards. I wish you would tend to it if you haven’t already done so.¹¹

On September 25, Graves wrote to Koski:

The work is approaching an end and it is to the advantage of everyone to get the loose ends together in order to delay on the final acceptance. Mr. Rauch has called to my attention again that the window sill in the first floor dining room was not replaced which has evidently been overlooked on your part.¹¹ ¹

On November 23, Graves again wrote Koski:

Mr. Rauch advises that the radiators should be set and tested before the floors are laid, on of possible leakage. This has been taken up with the heating contractor who will assume our responsibility. You may, therefore, proceed at once to put in the stairs, lay the floors and the cellar partitions and any work which is necessary for the completion of your contract. The owner is very anxious to get this work completed and I am sure the rest of us concerned are equally anxious.¹¹ ²

In a letter dated June 8, 1927, the issue of “extras” performed or paid for by Koski was raised. This letter listed items such as “attic window hinges,” “french door bolts,” “24 prs. 3-1/2 x 3-1/2 bronze plated butts,” among others. Nothing listed mentions the attic floor among these “extras.”¹¹ ³

The Electricians

Considering Kevin Klein’s observations, we see it isn’t necessary to know when the attic floor was laid for his theory to be true. But on considering all the information I have made available, it seems likely this was done after the walls were up and the roof was closed, but before the lath and plaster work began. While earlier sources seem to contradict this, once Koski and Rauch came together they agreed about this. Upon considering all sources, they seem to indicate that it was in July at the latest. So now we have a date to compare with Rauch’s testimony, when he said that the floor came after the electrical work. So exactly when did the electricians perform their work?

Lewis Graves started fielding estimates for all necessary labor and material for a complete electric light and bell installation for the two-family dwelling as early as April 1926. The Criterion Electric Company submitted a bid for $190.00 on April 13.¹¹ ⁴ Another (undated and unsigned) estimate was $225.00. Electrical contractor Leo Stern bid $235.00.¹¹ ⁵ There is no evidence that anyone was employed to do this job until a bid came in from the Loving Electrical Shop:

My estimate for the electric wiring in the two family house on 222nd Street & Needham Avenue, Bronx, N.Y.C. is the sum of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIX DOLLARS, ($126.00).¹¹

Graves responded to this offer. He asked Mr. Loving to adjust his estimate, considering additional work involving hanging fixtures.¹¹ ⁷ Loving responded and adjusted his estimate accordingly to $144.00.¹¹ ⁸ Graves responded on August 4:

I am enclosing herewith $72.00 check drawn by Mr. Rauch for first payment on electrical contract.¹¹

Loving replied: “Your letter of Aug 4th with check on 72.00 Dollars thankfully received.”¹¹¹

Conclusion

Because rail 16 was a toe-board in an attic requiring the removal of all shelves of a closet to gain entrance, and was cut hanging over the joist and not flush, a carpenter did not remove it. Electricians were not even contracted to start work on the house until early August 1926, and once we combine this information

with the facts both Rauch and Koski agreed to, as well as the carpentry contract and the purchase invoices, it is clear that the floor had been laid before those wires were run. It was therefore electricians who removed the portion of the floorboard which became rail 16. Just as Kevin Klein suggested, this was necessary in order to run a line into that wall by drilling through the plate and gaining access to a wall cavity. The piece removed was discarded and eventually found its way into the basement, along with the other leftover construction materials saved by Max Rauch. In total, all evidence points to this as having occurred.

The physical evidence against Hauptmann was real, but it was the timing, scenario, and situations which surrounded it that had been manufactured.

When considering the experience of the police carpenters – Enkler had been a carpenter for 16 years and Cramer for 26 years – if they had been shown the attic floor on September 26, I believe they would have immediately attributed this to the electricians. This could explain why it was observed on this date without any mention of its discovery. This might also explain why Koehler and Bornmann went to the garage and basement prior to climbing into the attic on October 9. Furthermore, any mention of lumber originating from the attic, but found by Hauptmann in the basement, is a very “messy” proposition. It also opened the door for the possibility of others to have been responsible for the board’s use. But cutting out a portion of that narrative and putting Hauptmann in the attic eliminates any confusion and sews up this evidence as both clear and convincing, since only Hauptmann could have had access to it.

The assertion concerning Rauch’s attic floor inspection prior to the Hauptmanns moving in seems suspect. What landlord would expect a part of one board in his attic floor to be missing? Also, what would necessitate such an inspection? While I can see Rauch looking up there to see if storage items were left behind, someone not specifically looking for a missing piece from the furthest floorboard most likely would not have noticed this. By this same reasoning, I don’t see much value in Miller’s testimony either. He didn’t want to step off the

floor through and into the ceiling but, again, if not looking for a missing board, I think it is very possible it wouldn’t have been noticed. That brings us to Bornmann’s attic visit. As proven by his first reports, he was looking for ransom money as well as wood-related items. It is for this reason the omission of the discovery of S-226 is so suspicious and gave rise to all the fabricated evidence claims. But here is where I think we must look back at all I have presented. Accompanied by the two police carpenters, it is possible that he did notice the missing board, but did not recognize this as significant because there was no mention of it in his original report. This is ed by the fact Koehler wasn’t immediately notified of its discovery.

Once again, the answers were always contained within the NJSP Archives, but no one ever took the time to put the pieces together. One of my original considerations was that the electricians had completely removed board 27 and that police discovered S-226 in the basement and, after realizing its origin, brought it back into the attic. However, Bornmann’s testimony about the joist marks on S-226, and Kevin Klein’s similar observations, to include the fact he saw no shadowing on rail 16, disprove this.

The actual and official discovery of S-226 occurred on October 9, 1934. By attempting to push back the date of the discovery to September 26, a chain of events was created that gave rise to all of the doubt related to this evidence.

Attic Floor showing S-226 (left) and Rail 16 in place. The two boards were once the same piece and together represented the 27th and last floorboard. (NJSP)

Attic Floor showing another angle of S-226 and Rail 16 in place. This photo was entered into evidence during the trial as exhibit S-228. (NJSP)

6 Justice is Served

The Courthouse

Located in the heart of Flemington, New Jersey, the Hunterdon County courthouse was built in 1828 by a “well-known” local named Mahlon Fisher. Designed to reflect his interpretation of the “Greek Revival Style,” the building had rubble masonry foundations, brick construction, and was covered by white cement plaster, with a pedimented portico on the east front. It was two-and-ahalf stories high with a three-bay front and gable roof.¹¹¹¹

The Jail

The Flemington Jail was rebuilt in 1925. According to Lloyd Fisher, it was a “Pauly”¹¹¹² equipped with steel bars and was “escape proof.”¹¹¹³ Despite this, Hauptmann had seven guards posted at various places near or around his cell. Except those in the bullpen, all others were heavily armed. Hauptmann was also subjected to heavy restrictions such as no shoestrings, tie, belt, knife, fork, pen or ink. At first, he wasn’t even allowed reading material, but at Fisher’s insistence, Hauptmann was eventually given a newspaper each day with the stipulation that all the articles related to the trial would be cut out. What remained, according to Fisher, was only the comics section.¹¹¹⁴ There was a bright light outside his cell which always remained lit, and if “Hauptmann attempted to sleep with his hands under a blanket,” the guards would wake him and would order him keep his hands visible.¹¹¹⁵

In 1932, the cell Hauptmann occupied held a man named “Krysinsky (or somesuch name)” from Lambertville. This inmate, while being arraigned on a “moral charge,” drew a concealed gun in the courtroom and killed Judge McKay as he sat on the bench.¹¹¹ With this in mind, the rules governing Hauptmann seemed justified.

Liv’in Large

At 11:00 AM on October 24, 1934, Judge Trenchard opened the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Hunterdon County, beginning the arraignment proceedings against Richard Hauptmann. Appearing for the prosecution was New Jersey Attorney General David T. Wilentz, Joseph Lanigan, Richard Stockton, and Anthony M. Hauck. The defense team included James M. Fawcett and George K. Large.¹¹¹⁷ Later, on December 11, 1934, Hauptmann and his lawyers were in court to ask for “a bill of particulars.” Absent was James M. Fawcett, who had been fired by Anna Hauptmann. Standing in for him were Lloyd Fisher and Frederick Pope. George K. Large was there too, but he had since switched sides and was now working as a special prosecutor,¹¹¹⁸ standing alongside Lanigan and Hauck, the two men he opposed over a month-and-a-half before.

As unlikely as it seems, it wasn’t the first time this happened. To properly show the trend, I will demonstrate what occurred in the John Hughes Curtis defense and trial, which finally answers the question of why Curtis was not prosecuted for a perpetrating a hoax but was instead convicted of obstruction for dealing with the actual kidnappers of the Lindbergh child.

Harry L. Stout

Lloyd Fisher represented Curtis at trial, but Curtis first consulted with

Flemington attorney Harry Stout.¹¹¹ Both Curtis and his Norfolk attorney, W. C. Pender, strategized with Stout on several occasions.¹¹² Stout wanted the Curtis defense to file a motion to have the case tried before someone other than Judge A. O. Robbins, who Stout believed was likely “prejudiced.” According to Pender:

I spoke fully about the manner in which Curtis had alleged he had been held in the Lindbergh home, and explained fully to him reasons why Curtis said he had made certain statements. I further asked him about various methods of defense which would be pertinent in Virginia and asked him if they would be good legal defenses in New Jersey, and in fact I discussed the defense of John Hughes Curtis fully and clearly with Mr. Stout, and Mr. Stout is absolutely in error when he says to the contrary.¹¹²¹

Pender also added that he discussed with Stout “many more intimate details of the defense” which he felt were of “a highly confidential nature.”¹¹²² Stout had “five or six visits with Curtis,”¹¹²³ after which he “announced publicly” that he represented Curtis and “made certain announcements in reference to defense plans” to the press.¹¹²⁴ When Lloyd Fisher tracked down one of the reporters, Martin McEvilly, who wrote one such article, he was told that Stout himself was the actual source and confirmed that he was representing Curtis.¹¹²⁵ During the many visits Stout had with Pender and Curtis, the defense “was fully and completely discussed.” “Curtis gave him names of various people who could the various statements” he “previously made” such as the “telegrapher in the station at Cape May” and “the manager of the Bell Telephone Company at Trenton, N.J.”

These people would have been able to prove that Curtis did receive and send messages in code from the Cape May station; that he did board a boat out of Cape May; that he was in the telephone office at Trenton accompanied by a man and sat there for hours trying to get someone at the Lindbergh house to answer the telephone calls he put in.¹¹²

Ultimately, Pender was suspicious of Stout because he came so highly recommended by Schwarzkopf, which led to the eventual hiring of Herr and Fisher instead of Stout.¹¹²⁷ Once Stout was informed, he was offered payment for his services but refused.¹¹²⁸

Curtis was charged with “obstructing justice” under Section 14-b of the New Jersey Crimes Act. Police “publicly announced” to the press that Curtis had “aided and abetted the kidnappers by misleading police,” pretending to be in with the kidnappers of the Lindbergh child when he was “in touch with no one.”¹¹² This charge resulted from Curtis’s own confession that his involvement was a “hoax” and…

…that the characters described were creatures of a distorted mind, that he at no time knew or had connection with the perpetrators or anyone who assisted them in their crime, or with anybody that was ever in possession of the Lindbergh baby.¹¹³

What’s also true was “that the indictment was based on this theory” as well.¹¹³¹ Several people who went before the grand jury testified that he was charged “because he said he knew the kidnappers” when he did not, and it was the “hoax confession” which proved it.¹¹³² However, having been privy to, as well as actually giving valuable input to a possible defense, Stout was fully aware that these witnesses he previously referred to could be produced. Stout therefore knew that the defense had a very good chance of success against any hoax theory presented by the prosecution. Lloyd Fisher believed that Stout was “apparently rankled in his heart” because he wasn’t kept on, causing him to offer his services to “the other side,”¹¹³³ writing a letter to Schwarzkopf on June 6, 1932:

Some day in the very near future I would like very much to have a talk with [sic] concerning the Curtis Case now pending in on Court in Flemington. I think it highly important that you understand some things that are being contemplated being done and will attempt to carry out. I do not want you to consider that I am

trying to Bull In on your efforts but I think you are to be made the Goat by Curtis Atty’s and I feel that you should be kept right. I would like to see you in a confidential way some day this week and until I see you please consider this confidentially.¹¹³⁴

This letter led to a dinner invite to Highfields. Present was Lindbergh, Schwarzkopf, Hauck, and others. Stout then advised them…

…that if they attempted to prove that Curtis had not been in with people whom he believed were the kidnappers, that they would take a licking and a good one – that he knew such proof was available and unquestionably could be presented.¹¹³⁵

Stout was able to induce the prosecution into changing its theory from one of a hoax to one where Curtis had been in “ with the Kidnappers,” but that he “refused to disclose their whereabouts.”¹¹³ On the opening day of the trial, as the defense prepared to defend Curtis against a hoax theory, to Fisher’s “utter amazement,” he saw Stout sitting with the prosecution, who now posited that Curtis had known and interacted with the actual kidnappers.¹¹³⁷ This change in theory “absolutely precluded [them] from making a defense of any kind.”

We didn’t dare call witnesses we had planned to, we didn’t dare put Curtis himself on the witness stand. If for instance, we had produced Curtis and he told the truth as he had told it in his statements, it would have been playing directly into the State’s hands. They would have said “Yes, that is exactly what we are intending to prove and that is the reason we claim the man is guilty.” If we had put on the witness from the telephone company to prove that Curtis was there with a man alleged to have been a kidnapper, the State would have said “Yes, that is what we are trying to prove; he was there with one of the kidnappers but he now refuses to tell us where the man is or who he is.”¹¹³⁸

On June 27, 1932, after Prosecutor Hauck “moved for the trial of the indictment against John Hughes Curtis,” Fisher “moved for the exclusion of H. L. Stout.”¹¹³ Fisher’s position was that Stout’s actions had been unethical when he offered his services and that the State “had no right” to accept them.¹¹⁴ Affidavits in of this motion were presented, and Martin J. McEvilly was brought in and sworn as a witness. McEvilly advised that unless ordered by the Court, he would refuse to answer any questions. Judge Robbins refused to order him to answer, and he was excused. Robbins then “announced he would not direct the exclusion of Mr. Stout from participation in the prosecution of the case.”¹¹⁴¹ Another point of interest came from Prosecutor Hauck’s opening:

We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Curtis was dealing with the kidnappers, that he knew who they were and where they were at the time the little baby’s body was found in a decomposed state along the road, and that he failed to reveal who they were and where they were, but falsely stated that they were at other places, where they could not be found.¹¹⁴²

Assistant Prosecutor Stout gave the State’s summation of the case. On July 2, Judge Robbins gave his charge to the jury, stating “Counsel for the defense has requested me to charge as follows”:

VII. In order to convict you must find that John Hughes Curtis acted knowingly – that is, that he had actual with the kidnappers or knew their exact whereabouts. I so charge.¹¹⁴³

On the same day the Jury returned with a verdict, read by foreman Leila Alpaugh:

We the Jurors in the case of State against John Hughes Curtis find the defendant guilty with recommendation for mercy from the court.¹¹⁴⁴

Lloyd Fisher spoke with several of the jury after the trial and “they told me that none of them knew just what Curtis had been convicted of.”¹¹⁴⁵

Liv’in Large (Continued)

Almost immediately after Hauptmann’s extradition to Flemington, his lawyer, James Fawcett, began spending “most of his time with George K. Large.”¹¹⁴ When Anna Hauptmann discovered Condon had visited her husband in his Flemington cell, she wanted Fawcett to know about it. She found him at Large’s home.¹¹⁴⁷ Anna herself asserted that she had at one time “discussed our case for over an hour” with George Large when he was “being considered for employment on part of the defense.”¹¹⁴⁸ On November 2, 1934, Fawcett was fired¹¹⁴ and replaced by Edward Reilly and Lloyd Fisher. However, this was not the end of Large’s involvement with the defense; Fisher wanted him to remain. Fisher knew they would need “additional Jersey counsel” and that “Mr. Fawcett, Richard’s first attorney, had already discussed the case with him.”¹¹⁵

Accordingly I approached Judge Large and asked him if he would be interested in ing the Hauptmann defense. He said he would. I then outlined our case as I saw it. Moreover, I took Mrs. Hauptmann on one occasion to Judge Large. She, too, told him all she knew about the case and about what our probable defense would be.¹¹⁵¹

“Not long afterward” Fisher discovered that Large had “been persuaded” to the prosecution – not the first time, in Fisher’s experience, that a lawyer “with whose proposed defense he had become familiar” was enticed into ing the opposing side.¹¹⁵² Fisher wrote:

I say I was amazed, but I shouldn’t have been. The same thing had happened in the John Hughes Curtis case, which the Attorney General’s office also prosecuted.¹¹⁵³

Given this, perhaps “enticed” isn’t the proper word. “Bribed” would seem to more accurate. George K. Large was paid $8,000 when the trial was over.¹¹⁵⁴ According to Large, he originally believed that “in line with our original arrangement” he was to receive $10,000.¹¹⁵⁵ Two days later Prosecutor Hauck wrote a letter to Wilentz. He reminded him that Large had been hired because of his recommendation and that he was “familiar with the extent and value of his work.” He therefore asked that Large receive his full compensation “without any deduction.”¹¹⁵

Additional “Maneuvering”

While there are too many indiscretions to mention, there are a select few which I believe are prime examples.

Albert B. Kurtz

In bringing up Albert Kurtz, it is hard not to mention Charlies Schleser. Schleser had pretended to be a defense witness, but was actually a mole planted by the prosecution to spy on the defense.¹¹⁵⁷ Here is an excerpt from Lloyd Fisher’s post-trial notes about him:

Recite evidence of Fisch’s dealings, and comment especially on the fact that Schloesser, [sic] a partner of Fisch, was on the payroll of the state during the

trial. What is more significant is that he never appeared directly on the pay roll, but was paid through a dummy. He was connected with Fisch in the Knickerbocker Pie steal.¹¹⁵⁸

Since Dr. Gardner did such a great job researching Schleser, there isn’t any need to go into him further, except to explain the situation outlined above.¹¹⁵ Unlike Schleser, there is very little mention of Kurtz anywhere, and since it is a rather strange tale, I think it bears mentioning.

Kurtz was a former New York county district attorney who had his share of problems. In 1930, he was arrested for issuing a worthless check.¹¹ In 1931, he was recommended for disbarment for bribery.¹¹ ¹ Kurtz was originally a witness for the State.¹¹ ² Part of what he was to testify to is mentioned here:

Albert B. Kurtz, an attorney, will testify that ISADORE FISCH was at his office on March 1st, 1932, together with Erich Schaefer and Mortimer B. Steindler. Fisch came there in connection with the SOLUX MANUFACTURERS CORPORATION, that had offices there with Albert B. Kurtz, till about 4:30P.M., when he left with Schaefer. Kurtz’s means of recollection this is due to his diary which shows an entry for March 2, 1932, when he was to appear on a sentence in a case in the Court of General Sessions. Kurtz requested Fisch to call upon Schlesser on the evening of March 1st, 1932, and ask Schlesser to meet him at General Sessions Part III, at 10:00 A.M. on the morning of March 2, 1932, which Schlesser did, thereby confirming the fact that the message had been delivered.¹¹ ³

In a bizarre twist, the hearing mentioned above involved a kidnapping in which Kurtz was representing one of the men accused, Max Lipsky. Schaefer told Robert Peacock that this case was often the topic of conversation between himself and Fisch.¹¹ ⁴ Schaefer also backed up the claim that both he and Fisch were at Kurtz’s office on March 1, 1932, leaving around 4:00 PM.¹¹ ⁵ He ed the date because Kurtz had told the men he had to be in court

because it “was the day of the sentencing of the kidnaper – the case Kurtz was trying.”¹¹ Schleser corroborated this and claimed he saw Fisch on March 1 at his home at 7:30PM to deliver the message from Kurtz, leaving at 9:00PM. He also ed the date because both he and Fisch spoke about Kurtz’s case; that it was the next day, March 2, that Leon Golden was to be the first of the four men sentenced.¹¹ ⁷ Golden was sentenced to a life term for the kidnapping of Sydney Mann, and Kurtz’s client Lipsky was sentenced on March 10 to twelve to twenty years in Sing Sing.¹¹ ⁸

As Kurtz waited to be called for his testimony, something strange happened. On January 10, 1935, Kurtz morphed from witness into “Special Assistant in New York” for the prosecution.¹¹ From that point, Kurtz paid Schleser out of his own pocket.¹¹⁷ Schleser’s expenses were being compensated, as well as a weekly $35.00 “salary” for each of the three weeks since. It is also clear that Kurtz was paying the expenses, as well as the “salaries,” for Steindler and someone named “Diamond.”¹¹⁷¹ Five days after the trial, Kurtz was asking for payment:

Will you be good enough to see to it that the pay warrants on the bills rendered to your office in the matter of the People vs Hauptmann are issued and forwarded to me at once?¹¹⁷²

There is also further proof of his official (or unofficial) position as “Special Assistant” in the next paragraph:

I have been receiving phone calls from several of the witnesses that I brought to New Jersey for the rebuttal, asking me what the cause of the delay in the receipt of the warrants due them was.¹¹⁷³

Kurtz also asked for the return of certain “exhibits” submitted by “Henry Jung, Mrs. Hoerber, and Charles R. Schlesser.”¹¹⁷⁴

On February 21, Kurtz wrote again, outlining the circumstances surrounding the situation:

I had delivered to Mr. Wilentz the original bill of expenditures and disbursements herewith enclosed. Since this bill represents practically all of the actual cash with which I have been working, its non-payment at this time is a source of extreme embarrassment to me, since obligations must be paid, and none of my creditors are interested in any statement that the State of New Jersey owes me money for disbursements made in it’s behalf in the Hauptmann case. I called this to Mr. Wilentz’s attention before leaving, and he assured me that the bill would be taken care of.¹¹⁷⁵

If there was any doubt that Kurtz had made payments out of his personal funds, the ending of his letter erases it:

I don’t want to be put in a position of “begging for monies that I disbursed, pursuant to an oral agreement, bearing in mind all the while that not a penny of this money actually represents a penny to me for my services to the State of New Jersey. I must, therefore, respectfully urge you to remedy this situation, and cause my check to be forwarded without any further delay.¹¹⁷

In early March, Kurtz acknowledged receipt of some payment and submitted his own bill for services rendered, totaling $500.00, or $50.00 per day.¹¹⁷⁷ Two weeks later, Schleser reappeared, complaining that he was still owed money:

Albert B. Kurtz owes me a certain sum of money, and if I would not know for a fact that he hasn’t received the money, I would feel that he is giving me a merryrun-around. Not a day es but that I ring him regarding the arrival of your

check. I do not believe that you know the meaning of the word, “tsaras” but if you do you only know about it from hearsay. It so happens that I am head-overheels buried in it.¹¹⁷⁸

By April, Kurtz’s letter demonstrated the situation he was now in:

I would very much appreciate, General, if you would be kind enough to favor me with an immediate reply to this letter, as the uncertainty and tension I am under is nearly making a wreck of me.¹¹⁷

On August 2, 1935, Wilentz sent a voucher for $500.00 made out to Kurtz, as a settlement for the full remaining amount owed to him for “his charges in the Hauptmann case.”¹¹⁸

Neither Kurtz nor Schleser ever testified in Flemington.

Hans Kloppenburg ¹¹⁸¹

Anthony Scaduto was one of the first authors who wrote about Wilentz’s threats to Hans Kloppenburg a few days before his testimony. Kloppenburg said that despite his insistence that he had seen Fisch in the Hauptmann apartment with a shoe box, Wilentz threatened him with “arrest” if he ever so testified.¹¹⁸² Kloppenburg further claimed that he read a newspaper story about a second man who was about to be arrested, which he believed was meant as a warning to him.¹¹⁸³ Knowing that these tactics by police and the prosecution were nothing new, I searched for further proof of Scaduto’s . I discovered this letter at

the NJSP Archives, written by Kloppenburg to Anna Hauptmann which backs up Scaduto’s claim:

I so very well, how I to Wilentz said, that I would swear that I. Fisch the Shoe Box brought to you. To that meant Wilentz that I of that Testimony alone could be arrested.¹¹⁸⁴

Hans Kloppenburg outside Flemington Courthouse (1935) (Author’s Collection)

Louis Kiss

Another similar occurrence is documented by Wayne Jones, concerning Louis Kiss, who testified to seeing Hauptmann in Fredericksen’s bakery on the night of March 1, 1932. Jones cited Kiss’s “deposition,” “regarding attempts made to have him change his testimony.”¹¹⁸⁵ I located the affidavit in the Hoffman Collection at the NJSP Archives, a verbatim recorded by Jones. In this document, Kiss claimed that the day after his testimony a New York lawyer named Berko, who Kiss knew, tried enticing him into changing his testimony as a way to “save” Kiss “from going to jail.”¹¹⁸ Berko said:

“I have an open wire to Wilentz and I can arrange that you go tomorrow back to Flemington and tell that you made a mistake by an hour, that you saw Hauptmann earlier than you said,” and he said “Mr. Wilentz will arrange that you won’t have any trouble.”¹¹⁸⁷

Kiss refused and claimed he told the truth. Berko then said:

“If you don’t change your story about the time, we will get Singer” (Singer was the man to whom I was delivering a package, when I saw Hauptmann) “and Singer will go over to Jersey and testify that you were at his place an hour earlier” and I said “I can’t help that, I told the truth.”¹¹⁸⁸

This affidavit goes on to say that Singer showed up to complain about Kiss causing him “trouble,” and that Kiss had been to his house “before eight o’clock,” which Kiss denied. This back and forth continued until the phone rang. Berko left to answer the call then came back to tell Kiss he was “in trouble” and that “I have just had Wilentz on the telephone and they are going to pin all this on you…” But Kiss would not break. The next day, he went to Reilly’s office and swore out a statement on this event. During another meeting, Berko again asked Kiss to change his position regarding his testimony, claiming there was “money” in it for him if he did. Berko also claimed that he ran into Wilentz at a dinner for “Harry Hirschfield” and asked him for help getting onto “Dewey’s staff.” Wilentz replied “why don’t you get your friend Kiss to change his story, and if you do, I will be glad to help you get on Mr. Dewey’s staff.”¹¹⁸ Present during this was Desider Weidinger who swore out an affidavit corroborating Kiss’s claims.¹¹

Although Lloyd Fisher did not have Kiss’s original statements to Reilly immediately after the incident, he did have new affidavits sworn to his secretary, Laura Apgar. He thought them important and asked Ellis Parker if he could follow up on them by visiting Berko to get his impressions.¹¹ ¹ I have never found a follow-up, either at the NJSP Archives or in the collection of my friend Andy Sahol. However, for anyone who may doubt these claims, I did find something rather interesting in the prosecution’s notes, in preparation for a possible appeal:

Note: Burko [sic] the Lawyer – his counsel on this retraction thing.¹¹ ²

George Foster

George Foster was a licensed private detective and president of “Foster & Roberts International Detective Bureau Inc.” at the time of Hauptmann’s arrest. About October 5, 1934, he was hired by James Fawcett to assist with

investigations for the defense.¹¹ ³ On November 8, Foster discovered that Fawcett had been fired. He was called to Fawcett’s office concerning his payment and was informed…

…by him that an arrangement had been made with Attorney General David T. Wilentz of the State of New Jersey whereby we ceased activity as investigators for Hauptmann and the Attorney General David T. Wilentz would have Captain Lamb of the New Jersey State Police pay the sum of $1475.00 then due and owing the deponent and his associate Charles L. Roberts for Richard Bruno Hauptmann. In other words, if we would cease our activities as investigators for Hauptmann and keep quiet, the Attorney General would pay our bill out of state funds thru Capt. Lamb of the State Police.¹¹ ⁴

Foster visited Ed Reilly, who informed him they had no interest in his services. Foster went to see Wilentz about his payment. Foster’s position was that he “saw no harm in taking payment of Hauptmann’s bill for services already rendered from anyone who wished to pay it.” Wilentz confirmed the agreement, leaving Foster with the impression he would receive payment once Hauptmann was executed.¹¹ ⁵ Wilentz requested an itemized bill which was typed and mailed to his Perth Amboy office.¹¹ Foster later called on Wilentz for assistance in obtaining employment with the sheriff of Cumberland County. Wilentz was “pleased to recommend”:

I have had sufficient with this company to know that they are honest and reliable. If you should have occasion to engage them for any services, I am satisfied you will find them satisfactory.¹¹ ⁷

However, sometime in January 1936, Foster was employed by the Bergen County Police as a detective and was immediately loaned to Governor Hoffman to assist with his re-investigation efforts. I have long suspected Foster’s appointment may have been politically motivated for this purpose only, but this is only a hunch and I have never been able to prove it. Also, as of the date of

Foster’s affidavit, he still hadn’t received payment from the State of New Jersey through Captain Lamb.¹¹ ⁸ I have also been unable to find any documentation to show whether he was ever paid after Hauptmann was executed. My guess is, having broken the arrangement, that he never was.

John Hughes Curtis (Again)

The Curtis angle of the case is literally incredible. It wasn’t just the fact that Curtis was convicted of dealing with “a “gang” of some seven or eight people, including a member of the Lindbergh household, who, the state asserted, were the actual kidnapers,” but that these same people then tried and convicted Hauptmann as a lone-wolf kidnapper. ¹¹ That contradiction was receiving attention prior to Hauptmann’s trial. Fisher was talking about it to the press and there were several articles that mentioned it, including one in the Hunterdon County Democrat.¹² Curtis’s attorney, William Pender, was ed followed by a November 10 meeting between Wilentz, Peacock, and Pender.¹² ¹ There it was brought out that Curtis believed it a “strong possibility that Hauptmann” was the “man whom he had known as John.”¹² ² Wilentz was particularly interested in the possibility of Curtis testifying, if necessary, that Hauptmann was the man who showed him the ransom money. On December 7, Pender wrote Wilentz to inform him that they had been approached by the “Whitney investigators” with “certain inducements for part they desire to be played.”¹² ³ Once aware that the defense was attempting to recruit Curtis, Wilentz wrote back to Pender asking for another conference.¹² ⁴ On December 28, Pender wired Wilentz:

Statement Curtis has notified Jersey Police that he is prepared to testify that Hauptmann showed him ransom money on meeting with Hauptmann STOP He is prepared to state he had personal with Hauptmann.¹² ⁵

According to Lloyd Fisher, a meeting took place in Philadelphia, where Curtis

said that a picture of Hauptmann “looked very much like the man he had known as John.”¹² Curtis then made several stipulations: He would need to see Hauptmann before making the identification, he would not change his story about the fact that “John only represented himself to be only a man,” and that several others besides Hauptmann, including a Lindbergh household member, were involved. Robert Peacock advised that Curtis would be “of no value to them” and then Curtis was “sent home.”¹² ⁷ An Associated Press appeared, claiming the prosecution had “flatly rejected” the Curtis offer to testify against Hauptmann on their behalf.¹² ⁸ But the documentation at the NJSP Archives tells a different story. Apparently, the newspaper article had only been a ruse. In fact, both Pender and Curtis stayed in Philadelphia on January 5 and 6, at the expense of the State of New Jersey, on standby to testify.¹² Of course, that testimony never took place and I’ve always wondered if this wasn’t a tactic by the prosecution to put Curtis “on ice,” as a way of preventing him from entering the case and possibly testifying for the defense. Curtis later hinted as much, when during an interview he explained:

That he knew Hauptmann was NOT the kidnapper or murderer, and that he himself (Curtis) had been willing and anxious to testify at the trial, but that the prosecution had prevented this, because they knew he would “mess up the State troopers” and their pre-arranged story. That he himself was the only man who had actually seen, face to face, and talked with the kidnapper, and that it positively was NOT Hauptmann.¹²¹

The problem in dealing with Curtis was that his interest, first and foremost, was in himself. He could have been playing semantics when discussing the man supposedly known as “John,” or he could have been lying to the interviewer, the documentation proving that he was willing to testify to his with Hauptmann. There is further evidence of this. Bill Haskel, who testified at the Curtis trial and was connected to The New York Herald Tribune, wrote to Colonel Schwarzkopf:

He [Curtis] also says that he definitely ed Hauptmann on three occasions

and gave me the dates – April 5th, 12th and 17th following the kidnaping, and that Larsen was with him on each occasion.¹²¹¹

In a follow-up letter, Haskell asserted that Curtis had told him that “Larsen” was “the real brains and kidnapper.”¹²¹² So it is quite clear to me that he was trying to work both ends of the stick and, in some ways, so was the prosecution at the time of the trial, by “tying him up” in Philadelphia as they did.

Bert C. Farrar

Bert Farrar was a handwriting expert who had worked for the federal government since President Benjamin Harrison’s istration.¹²¹³ By 1934, he boasted 33 years of experience in his field.¹²¹⁴ Farrar’s first appearance in the Lindbergh case appears to have been on March 4, 1932, and his services were used by the FBI, the Treasury Department, and the NJSP throughout the investigation. Things ran smoothly until Farrar picked up the May 22, 1932, edition of The Washington Post, reading that Dr. Souder of the Bureau of Standards was expected to make an examination “pivotal” to the case. Farrar felt “thrust aside.”¹²¹⁵ Betrayed and humiliated, he wrote to Schwarzkopf that he took “pride” in his “profession” and felt as though he was in the very same league as “Stein, Osborn, and Wood.”¹²¹

My services were freely given with an earnest desire to help a family overtaken by calamity. I put into this work all I had, all that past years might have taught me. To my mind there can be but one explanation of your course in this matter and that is that in your opinion my analysis and summary and summing up on the kidnaping letters has utterly failed and proven of no value. It seems to me that this is the time for frankness on your part and I am asking you to tell me without reservation in just what respect my findings have fallen down.¹²¹⁷

Schwarzkopf’s reply was that whatever the Post printed did not come from the NJSP and that Farrar hadn’t been sidelined. He went on to explain that other experts were brought in as a direct result of Farrar’s own suggestion, and that they continued to rely on his , as promised by the Treasury Department. There was also an unusual postscript: “This letter is not for publication.”¹²¹⁸

After Hauptmann’s arrest, Farrar was notified by telegram that, “if necessary,” Farrar would be called as a witness against him. In his reply, Farrar closed by writing “I want to ensure you that my main desire has always been and still is that the guilty man be brought to justice.”¹²¹ On October 8, Farrar received photostatic copies of the ransom notes. After his examination he wrote:

I have made a preliminary survey of all of the documents and from what I have seen the result is so convincing as to leave no doubt in my mind that Hauptmann is the author of all of the kidnap notes. There is so much standard writing that the task of identification is quite simple and I believe that when these writings are properly brought together no reasonable minded jury could fail to be convinced.¹²²

On October 19, Farrar wrote Schwarzkopf requesting photographs of the actual letters:

Some of the writing not disclosed in the photostats might contain small details that are important in bringing out common identity. I have a plan in mind for illustrating my testimony that may be useful to the prosecution in that my analysis of the writing might give a point of view that is somewhat different but would not conflict with the testimony of Mr. Osborn.¹²²¹

He also wrote that “of course, no two men look at a certain thing in exactly the same way.”¹²²² On October 24, Farrar received the pictures, but while he felt they

were “well enough for identification,” he did not consider them valuable for anything else:

It would seem like wasted effort to spend days and days upon earnest preparation and then present to a jury illustrations that are flat and not convincing.¹²²³

Despite this, and his continued efforts to get the specific photos he wanted, it does not appear Farrar received them. In fact, to emphasize the need for those photos, on December 1, Farrar wrote that he had made “dummy” charts using the useless photostats:

I consider the presentation to the jury of clear and adequate charts a very important feature of my testimony and would feel reluctant to testify unless this testimony was ed by such charts.¹²²⁴

On December 13, Farrar was still complaining that his charts were “practically illegible due to rather indifferent photostats” he had to work with. Additionally, he complained that new sets of photos were “prepared on thick glossy paper” and therefore could not be used for his charts.¹²²⁵ There is also evidence that he did not enjoy the same level of communication received by other handwriting experts like Albert S. Osborn, John Tyrell, and Harry Cassidy received. On December 18, as requested, Farrar took the train to Trenton, to examine the original material. Farrar was also in Trenton from December 29 through December 31, for conferences about his testimony. In compliance with a subpoena, Farrar went back to Trenton on January 9, remaining there until January 17,¹²² but was never called to testify. I believe the reason for this is best exemplified in an early October memo to Schwarzkopf, written before the State’s handwriting experts were officially selected:

Mr. Bert C. Farrar of the Treasury Department examined some of the Lindbergh ransom notes and due to his connection with the case should probably be called as a witness. Mr. Farrar’s experience in the handwriting field is somewhat limited as compared with the other experts named. Most of his experience is confined to the examination of questioned signatures. He has had a great deal of experience in court work in his own phase of handwriting but in cases such as the Lindbergh case his reputation is not so great.¹²²⁷

What can be seen here is that Farrar’s original instincts in May 1932 were correct. But why would the NJSP retain Farrar if this was how they felt about him? I think the answer is in the same source:

It is not likely that any of the experts named would testify or make an examination for the defense, if called. However, to rescue them from embarrassment if called by the defense and to assure their examination and appearance for the prosecution it is advisable to communicate with them at once.¹²²⁸

The implication is clear: Grab Farrar and keep him away from the defense. After all, he had already demonstrated a degree of sensitivity, suggesting he could easily become disgruntled. With this in mind, if Farrar was cut loose from the prosecution, was there a possibility he might flip to the defense? I submit this was something the prosecution did not want to risk.

Farrar’s Fee

Another strange aspect concerning Farrar was his request for payment. He had been loaned to the State of New Jersey for the purposes of his testimony and was being paid by the federal government. This is why the prosecution only expected

to reimburse expenses to state and federal employees, not for professional services rendered. Farrar acknowledged this, but he also claimed additional services, which included working nights, Sundays, and holidays, as well as expenditures for “materials” needed for his testimony, for which he expected compensation.¹²² In another follow-up letter, Farrar mentioned a bill for $105.75 for “actual expenses” and $400.00 for “materials and overtime.” To justify this, he wrote:

In explanation of this overtime I may say that Saturdays and Sundays and evenings I do not in any way consider the government’s business but is my own time and the charge is made to the State accordingly. All of the work outside of this the government has allowed me to perform without charge.¹²³

Around this time, Farrar also “enlisted the aid of Mr. Hicks in an effort to obtain payment” for these services. Farrar had met Lieutenant Hicks while Hicks was “employed by the Prosecution in the Lindbergh case” and believed if he interceded on his behalf it “would bear some weight with New Jersey officials.”¹²³¹ Farrar was right. Due to the exorbitant bills submitted by the handwriting experts, Hicks was tasked by Anthony Hauck to study their work and make recommendations. This resulted in an 11-page report with “recommendations helpful” to Farrar.¹²³² Farrar was eventually paid $345.00 for his services, sarcastically referring to the $105.00 balance as a “donation” “to the State of New Jersey.”¹²³³

Rebuttal Handwriting Witness

There was, and remains, a great deal of discussion of rebuttal handwriting witnesses. While there is no doubt that was the prosecution’s explanation for employing so many handwriting experts, I find it unlikely this applied exactly as history records it. The first thing to consider is that Farrar, Special Agent Appel, and Dr. Souder were all loaned to the case by the various federal agencies. Appel

even testified before the Bronx grand jury after Hauptmann’s arrest.¹²³⁴ His testimony was backed up by numerous charts and he was both clear and convincing to the jury. Regardless, the prosecution did not use him in Flemington. Why? Because they were deferring to Albert S. Osborn, the handwriting expert they believed to be the absolute best in the field. He had specifically recommended Sellers, Tyrrell, Walter, Cassidy, and Stein.¹²³⁵ Additionally, both Osborn and his son were a “package deal,” so Albert D. Osborn was in too. When it came to Farrar and Appel, Osborn conceded they might be considered to testify, merely because they had been involved with the case from the beginning. He said he did not know Appel, but that Farrar’s connection to the Treasury Department might “warrant his employment.” Osborn’s biggest endorsement was for Dr. Souder, who Osborn believed a “competent and distinguished man.”¹²³

One of Farrar’s many qualifications was his attendance at German schools for five years and his ability to testify to true German characters and pronunciation. This, he believed, would help jurors who might be confused with the “intermingling” of German and English contained in the ransom notes.¹²³⁷ What Farrar did not know was that the NJSP had already acted on this by consulting Osborn Sr., who recommended Dr. Louis Schulhofer.¹²³⁸ Schulhofer indeed does appear to have been a planned rebuttal expert, based upon the very reasoning Farrar himself had first pointed out.¹²³

J. Vreeland Haring

When it came to J. Vreeland Haring and his son J. Howard, it appears they were brought into the State’s fold for same reason Farrar had been kept on. In his book, The Hand of Hauptmann, Haring asserted that just after Hauptmann’s arrest, he had received a phone call from James Fawcett, to retain his services for the defense. However, Haring also claimed that, at “about the same time,” Prosecutor Hauck also reached out to “retain my services.”¹²⁴ Haring implied that after Hauck’s invite, he examined the notes and concluded Hauptmann had written them. Wilentz was supposedly notified and Haring was “retained to

testify for the State.”¹²⁴¹ Whether or not Hauck did reach out I do not know, but the insinuation that he was invited into the fold of the State’s experts at that time cannot be true. In fact, the elder Haring had actually been employed by the defense as one of James Fawcett’s experts.¹²⁴² Another of Fawcett’s experts, Aaron Lewis, revealed that he had spent “hours” examining the 14 ransom notes at “the State House in Trenton.”¹²⁴³ Since Haring was one of the defense experts at the time, it seems a strong possibility that all Fawcett’s handwriting experts were given access on the same occasion. But it’s hard to know what really happened, because what Haring wrote in his book has already been shown to be unreliable and I have no other documentation to explain it.

It could be that Haring believed Hauptmann wrote the notes, then withdrew from the defense. Or it could be, as occurred later with both Myers and Malone, that the defense could not afford his services or did not want to meet his financial demands.¹²⁴⁴ Either way, by October 29, he was no longer involved with the case. But instead of the misleading assertions in his book which concerned an open invite, Haring actually began pestering the prosecution, seeking a position among the other experts who had already been hired. The reply was typical:

My dear Mr. Haring:

Permit me to acknowledge receipt of your letter and assure you that we will be glad to place your name on file and should occasion require we may call upon you.¹²⁴⁵

This is yet another reason to consult the source material documentation. One must read what’s in the Archives to know what was true and what wasn’t. In any event, nearly every handwriting expert in the country was hoping to get a foot in the door. One example was Bushrod Spencer, probably most famous for the 1928 “Von Moschzisker-Mowell Case,” in which Spencer was an expert for the defense, Albert D. Osborn for the State. With the trial ending in acquittal, Spencer boasted that the jury believed his testimony over Osborn’s.¹²⁴ But even

with such seasoned experts excluded from the trial, J. V. Haring did not take no for an answer. He solicited a favor from Newark attorney Charles Trachtenberg to recommend his services directly to the attorney general.¹²⁴⁷ Wilentz’s reply would be as one would expect:

We may be able to engage him a little later. At this time we seem to have a sufficient number of handwriting experts.¹²⁴⁸

This did not deter Haring, as he continued to press on for employment in the case – so much so that there may have been cause for concern that he would offer his services to Reilly. For this reason, I believe Wilentz finally decided to add Haring to the ranks. Haring’s assertion was that Wilentz believed there was a “weakness” in the testimony of the eight experts, and “asked” Haring “to prepare evidence” which would conclusively prove Hauptmann wrote the original ransom note.¹²⁴ After all, had the prosecution truly needed yet another rebuttal expert, why not Spencer? Why not one of the countless others? Why not Appel, who had proven his value in the Bronx and whose testimony already included comparison with the original ransom note? His testimony wouldn’t have cost the State a dime, and yet history records that while Appel wasn’t needed, both J. V. and his son J. Howard – in addition to both Farrar and Schulhofer – were.

Haring’s first official involvement in the case began with a conference between his son J. Howard and Wilentz on December 24.¹²⁵ J. Howard was a handwriting expert too and, like Albert D. Osborn, came in a package deal with his father. After one court session, Haring approached Lindbergh and gave him a booklet he authored on the “Lancaster Case,” in an apparent attempt at networking. This was followed up by a letter which included his six-page “qualifications” and an outline to his approach in court testimony.¹²⁵¹ While we’ll never know if Lindbergh bothered to read this material, I do know he turned everything over to Schwarzkopf and it is currently at the NJSP Archives.

Ultimately, I don’t know what I don’t know. There could always be a document

or source that is not currently housed at the NJSP Archives waiting to be found. Items like this could either complement or call my positions into question. But I do know what is in the Archives to be discovered, because I have found it.

Evidence

Not wanting to bore the reader with an overabundance of information on the same point, I want to make known some of the questions and wrangling as it existed among the State’s handwriting evidence and potential exhibits.

Harry E. Cassidy

Unknown to many, this wasn’t Cassidy’s first brush with the Lindbergh case. His original connection concerned the Morrow chauffeur, Charles Ellerson:

Mr. Cassidy, handwriting expert, has stated that Ellerson could have written these notes, but he is inclined to think that it might be some of his relatives or some of his Scandinavian connections who wrote them.¹²⁵²

Concerning Hauptmann, Cassidy found that his handwriting exhibited “obvious changes” which he believed could be explained as a “foreigner who has learned to write and is continuing to write the English way.”¹²⁵³ However, among Cassidy’s concerns was the potential for the defense to “pounce” on certain specific features of Hauptmann’s handwriting, which could influence the jury. One such feature was the lower case “k.” Cassidy found this to be a consistent dissimilarity and pressed for the NJSP to find “other writings” attributable to Hauptmann that would show this small “k” as it was written in the ransom notes.

I feel sure this way of making the “k s” was not adopted simply for the writing of these ransom notes although this is a possibility and will have to be one of the explanations offered for the happening should such “k s” not be found among any of accused’s standard writings. I it that a failure to find such “k s” would not change me as to my opinion that the accused wrote the ransom notes but I do say that the finding of them would materially strengthen my testimony as well as all the other witnesses. I have heard eloquent pleas by defense attorneys on reasonable doubt theories sway weak jurors which were based on much less tangible evidence than these dissimilar “k s.”¹²⁵⁴

Schwarzkopf’s response echoed Cassidy’s concerns:

With reference to the dissimilarity in the writing which you mention, particularly the letter “k” I can readily understand that this may afford an opportunity for the defense to endeavor to create a reasonable doubt and we are therefore endeavoring to secure further writings of the defendant.¹²⁵⁵

This feature was never found in any of Hauptmann’s standards.

James Clark Sellers

On October 20, 1934, Sellers received copies of the pictures of the handwriting evidence. He was appreciative, explaining that the photographs “form a much better basis for study” than do the “photostats.”¹²⁵ Once Sellers saw the September 20, 1934 picture of Hauptmann’s request writing, it sent up a red flag. He noticed “a different pictorial appearance” after the “first five lines.” He then asked Schwarzkopf “whether or not there were any special instructions given to”

Hauptmann.

I would appreciate to knowing, at your earliest convenience, whether or not Hauptmann saw the anonymous threat letters previous to the time that he did the request writing for the officers, and whether or not any instructions were given him at any time while he was doing the request writing, either as to the manner in which he should form any of the letters or as to the spelling.¹²⁵⁷

Schwarzkopf wrote back that dictation came from either a “circular” of the “Boad Nelly” note, or a “form,” which had been prepared by Osborn to be dictated. Schwarzkopf added:

Occasionally when he was stuck as to spelling and would ask how to spell a word he would be told, in general, however, he was told to spell it as best he could. He was not given any instructions as to the forming of any letters. He was not given any instructions in connections with any of this request writings, he was merely handed paper and pen and told to write from the dictation given him.¹²⁵⁸

It’s hard to know if Schwarzkopf was being truthful. One must consider the beating Hauptmann took from police, which, to this day, some people refuse to accept because police denied it occurred. There’s also the oft-quoted part of Special Agent Turrou’s book, where he claims Hauptmann was instructed how to form certain letters in other exemplars. However, despite the fact there would be no reason for Turrou to include this, we cannot rely on this source as rock solid proof.¹²⁵ When it came to spelling, it is unquestionable that Hauptmann was told how to spell certain words at certain times. Any argument to the contrary doesn’t hold up, considering Schwarzkopf’s own ission. This fully s Hauptmann’s assertion that he had written words dictated and “spelled exactly as I was told to spell them.”¹² However, the idea that he may have been shown the actual notes is just as clearly dispelled by Hauptmann’s own reply to Ellis Parker that the “first time” he saw the “letters they had at the trial” was “in the court

room in the Bronx.”¹² ¹ Had Hauptmann been forced to imitate writing from the original notes or copies of them, he certainly would have announced this just as he had done when his spelling was influenced. I see this as one thing proving the other: If he’s lying about the spelling, he’d certainly lie here too. But by telling the truth here, Hauptmann proved he was not lying about being told how to spell.

Albert D. Osborn

Osborn viewed Hauptmann’s misspellings in his dictated exemplars as proof of authorship of the ransom notes.

Hauptmann wrote this paragraph from dictation five times, two copies which are shown in these photographs of Exhibits D-1 and D-2. Eight of these misspellings are shown in the enclosed comparison photograph, and when Hauptmann wrote this paragraph he misspelled all these words in the same way in which they are misspelled in the letters. If this is a mere coincidence then I will eat that gray hat of yours. Of course he later spelled some of the words correctly, but he actually made the same mistakes that are made in the letters.¹² ²

As it concerned what Cassidy had questioned, Osborn observed the following:

Another important point about this paragraph is that when he stated to write it, as seen in D-1, he disguised the first six lines, but from there on he wrote in his natural hand. These first six lines that he was disguising are very close to the writing in the Lindbergh letters, as they were disguised. He must have suddenly realized that he had disguised those letters and at that point started to write in his natural manner.¹² ³

Despite his previous position on spelling being extremely questionable, an observation such as this seems incredibly valuable, if Hauptmann hadn’t been influenced in the way Special Agent Turrou suggested. A confusing point is Osborn’s assertion that Hauptmann could his disguise from 1932. But how could this be, considering the instructions attached to the request-writing form letter, given to the NJSP in 1932:

It is important to have the writer write this matter three times, taking each sheet away as it is finished, for in this way if a disguise is being attempted the first and the last specimens may, and probably will, be quite different. It is difficult for any writer to how he has disguised a piece of writing even when it has just been done, while if he is writing naturally the three specimens will all look very much alike. ¹² ⁴

But if this is true, how did Hauptmann his disguise from note to note, and then years later? We’re also supposed to believe that he ed the disguise, but forgot he used it in the ransom notes.

Behind the Scenes on Hauptmann’s Standards

Captain Snook advised all State’s experts to disregard exhibits “F-4 and F11.”¹² ⁵ (All “F” exhibits during pre-trial consideration were either car registrations, operator’s licenses, or renewal applications).¹²

Sellers wanted to know from the State whether Hauptmann’s “large book” was to be used because he wanted the numerals and characters from that writing in his illustrations.¹² ⁷

Osborn S., Osborn D., and Stein all concluded that “F-4” contained “some” writing that was “not” Hauptmann’s and suggested “it would be better to cut out the whole card.”¹² ⁸

Stein advised that the “small notebook” used for the “expenses of the trip to California” should “not be used as a standard of Hauptmann’s writing.”¹²

On the small notebook Tyrrell wrote:

With reference to the book and the entries unquestionably made by other than Hauptmann, I apprehend there will be a vigorous cross examination as to which are Hauptmann’s and which not.¹²⁷

Tyrrell later urged this evidence not be used:

As for the expense book, my opinion is that it had better be definitely mislaid. Hauptmann knows that you have it, that his German friends wrote in it, his attorney may call for it. In the event he secures it the net effect will be – well, less desirable even than if the state had introduced it.¹²⁷¹

Tyrrell also suggested that “F-10” be “omitted” because certain words on it were not written by Hauptmann.¹²⁷²

Osborn S. congratulated Schwarzkopf:

Well, at last you have the man in New Jersey, and I think that everyone breathes a sigh of relief. I do not of any defendant in any case that I have been in who has so little sympathy from anyone. I suppose it is because he kidnaped a baby and especially a Lindbergh baby.¹²⁷³

Osborn wanted the “little notebook” included because he wanted to use “one or two things in it.”¹²⁷⁴ However, after being advised that the handwriting experts should not consider the notebook he wrote:

It is too bad that we cannot use those two middle pages including the word “Boad” but I am inclined to think it would be dangerous to use the book at all if we are obliged to say that part of it was not written by Hauptmann and I think we have sufficient standard writing for our purpose.¹²⁷⁵

Osborn also itted that he missed seeing what Tyrrell saw concerning that notebook:

Mr. Tyrrell made a real contribution to the case in calling attention to the fact that all of the writing in the little notebook was not by Hauptmann. The photographs of this sent to us were those first photostat photographs which were very pale and we had never really examined the book carefully and had not photographed it excepting part of one page.¹²⁷

Despite this, the notebook was entered into evidence.¹²⁷⁷ Wilentz opted to use it independent of the handwriting experts’ testimony and walk Hauptmann through it himself. The idea was to get Hauptmann to identify exactly what the experts had wanted to point out. One of those things was the word “Boad,” which Hauptmann testified he could not having written.¹²⁷⁸

Lloyd Fisher

For Lloyd Fisher, the handwriting testimony was a source of real frustration. According to one document, the State of New Jersey paid their experts a total of over $30,000, an amount sizably reduced from their originally submitted bills.¹²⁷ The defense, on the other hand, had been swindled by Reilly, who had submitted a fraudulent bill amounting to “$5757.62” to Mrs. Hauptmann for their handwriting experts.¹²⁸ In the end, only three people were paid: Trendley received “$462.28,” Goodspeed received “$50.00,” and Braunlich “$45.00,” with Reilly pocketing the rest himself. Upon learning of this, Fisher threatened to file a complaint with the Bar Association and Reilly refunded “$800” in settlement of the issue.¹²⁸¹ In the meantime, Goodspeed sued the defense, and Fisher made an additional “$400” settlement, also settling with Farr for “$25.” Foster, according to Fisher, “never got a nickel so far as I know.”¹²⁸²

Exculpatory Evidence

According to Lloyd Fisher “one of the things that stood out” was the “unwillingness of the State to produce anything” they had “in their possession” which could have assisted the defense.¹²⁸³ He claimed they “resisted every effort made by the defense to procure additional information” and “refused steadfastly” to aid the defense “to view exhibits, to enter the Lindbergh property, or to enter the house formerly occupied by Hauptmann.”¹²⁸⁴ Fisher had to endure juvenile tactics, such as Wilentz refusing to come to the phone, claiming “tonsillitis” and Schwarzkopf pretending the NJSP was no longer in charge at Highfields, despite the fact troopers still guarded it and would not let the defense anywhere near the premises.¹²⁸⁵ Also among these claims was that Wilentz refused to “let defense handwriting experts make a proper examination of the ransom notes.”¹²⁸ During the trial, the prosecution was getting “up-to-the-minute” and “complete copies of the testimony.”¹²⁸⁷ The defense requested a copy of the official court stenographer records taken so they could review and prepare for the next day.¹²⁸⁸ The stenographer employed by the State, John Van Blarcom, actually offered the defense a free copy if the State would allow it, but Wilentz refused despite

knowing they had no money to obtain their own.¹²⁸ Fisher also believed that the prosecution was “crowding the prosecution table with notables” like:

General Ryan, Breckinridge, Lindbergh himself, ex-Attorney General Stevens, and any other influential and well-known people, whose presence at the table necessarily could well imply a sympathy with the state’s case.¹²

Lloyd Fisher asserted that he could point to “hundreds of other conspicuous examples” of the…

…obvious unfairness of this man [Wilentz], who, by his actions, not only obstructed the legitimate process of solving the Lindbergh crime, but, in my opinion at least, disqualified himself from further participation in that process.¹² ¹

Strong words. Regardless of Wilentz and the State’s tactics, it did “not alter the main facts” from which Fisher depended on for Hauptmann’s acquittal:

It was still true that no one had seen him commit the kidnapping of which he was charged; that no one had seen him commit the murder of which he was charged; that no one knew for sure that a murder had been committed; that no one knew for sure that the body of the child found beside the road was the body of the Lindbergh child; and that no one knew for sure that that child, whoever he was, had not died from an Act of God.¹² ²

Selection

During the jury selection process, Lindbergh sat in the same row as Hauptmann in the Flemington courtroom, only four seats away. On occasion Lindbergh leaned forward, plainly revealing was armed with a pistol under his coat.¹² ³

Tampering

At the end of January, there were several newspaper reports about attempts at jury tampering. Most of these s stemmed from a New York Post article, which claimed an “unidentified man” attempted to communicate with “one of the jurors twice” the previous week.¹² ⁴ According to the article, officials in the courtroom witnessed a man “signaling to the juror,” but that the “juror did not acknowledge this signal.” The second try supposedly came through an attempt to “relay a message” to the juror “through a tradesman.”¹² ⁵ It was reported that an investigation ensued, and it was “definitely established” that the man in question had “no connection with Hauptmann’s attorneys” and was “a member of a New York society.”¹² Word leaked that this matter was being investigated and, when asked, Sheriff Curtiss claimed there was “nothing to” these rumors.¹² ⁷

Sequestered

Although the jury was sequestered and under strict orders not to communicate with anyone, they were nevertheless subjected to certain influences.

Their daily trudges back and forth between the courthouse and the Union Hotel required them to push through the mobs of sometimes hysterical people, many of whom attempted to communicate with them, possibly intimidating the jurors and influencing their verdict.¹² ⁸ The jurors would also hear the “news boys,” always “yelling the latest headlines in the newspapers.”¹² (To give an idea the size of these crowds, one might consider that Flemington, a town of 2,800, was

estimated to have ballooned to 10,000 during Hauptmann’s trial.¹³ As early as January 11, 1935, only nine days into the trial, “64,000 persons had visited Flemington” and the number of people attempting to obtain a “general public” numbered “as high as 20,000 in one day.”)¹³ ¹ The jurors were quartered on the Union Hotel’s third floor and had to walk past guests and reporters on both the first and second floors.¹³ ² While out on the balcony to get some much needed air, they witnessed all kinds of antics and heard many loudly stated opinions about the case from below. They could also hear the WOR broadcasts “that were given every night and but fifteen or twenty feet” away from the hotel’s main porch, as well as the “antagonistic” remarks toward the defense by commentator Boake Carter.¹³ ³ Even during dinner downstairs, they were only separated from the press and “curiosity seekers” who openly expressed their opinions by a mere “cloth screen which reached neither the ceiling nor floor.”¹³ ⁴ Not only was every word overheard by the jury, their own conversations were overhead as well.¹³ ⁵ Hoffman added:

If ever there was a jury, supposedly sequestered, that was as openly exposed to mob spirit and prejudicial opinion, I have never heard of it.¹³

Fisher believed it would have been better had the Jury had been allowed to go home every night.¹³ ⁷

Mary Belle Spencer

Chicago attorney Mary Belle Spencer is mentioned in Jim Fisher’s book The Lindbergh Case, where he discussed her booklet, “No. 2310, Criminal File: Exposed! Aviator’s Baby Was Never Kidnapped or Murdered,” which had been mailed to the prospective jury pool. Fisher claimed it was an “absurd” work of “fiction,” and was “ignored.”¹³ ⁸ Fisher’s footnotes go on to cite a New York Times article which described Spencer being questioned by the FBI, telling them the booklet was “satire” meant only to be “funny,” that she hadn’t mailed it to

the jury and had “no idea” who did.¹³ I decided to search the NJSP Archives for any information I could find on this.

One of my first discoveries was a copy of the actual publication. I noticed that the title was really “No. 2310, Criminal File: Exposed! Limberg’s Baby Was Never Kidnapped or Murdered,” a “cut-out” with the words “Aviator’s Baby” pasted over the words “Limberg’s Baby.”¹³¹ The booklet depicted a mock trial which found, just as Fisher wrote, that there was no kidnapping, that the child had actually wandered off and was “attacked” and consumed by wild animals. The fictional trial ended with the following verdict:

The Court: The clerk will now read the verdict.

Clerk: “We, the jury, find the defendant, John Doe, not guilty.”

WHEREUPON THE COURT ADJOURNED¹³¹¹

When the jury received this pamphlet, Prosecutor Hauck was irate. It was revealed that “every member” of the “150 persons on the ” had received a copy, but according to Hauck, was only prejudicial to the prosecution.¹³¹² As word of this spread, Lloyd Fisher told reporters he disagreed with Hauck: “We hold it just as prejudicial to our case, for that matter even more, as it is to the prosecution.”¹³¹³ Fisher asserted that, due to the publicity, he was going to ask Judge Trenchard to dismiss the entire jury and form a new one.¹³¹⁴ Newspapers also reported that Hauck claimed Spencer had written the document to “tamper” with the jury, but that Spencer had “scoffed” at the idea, pointing out it was written in 1933 and stating, “all I can say is that I never heard of the jury . I didn’t even know they had one.”¹³¹⁵

Regardless, the entire jury remained intact, but Fisher was sure to question any prospective juror during the selection process, if questioning reached that point. For example:

Q [Fisher]: Did you receive a copy of “Criminal File No. 2310?”

A [Nonamaker]: Yes.

Q And did you read it?

A Yes.

Q Did that influence you one way or the other?

A Not at all.

Q Did it cause you to be incensed against anyone in connection with the case?

A No.

Q You simply ed that up as something of not any importance, is that right?

A Yes.¹³¹

Once the jury was selected, the Spencer material seemed to have been forgotten. However, I discovered some letters that Spencer wrote almost a year later that reflect her true beliefs on the matter. In one, she wrote to Detective Ellis Parker:

Page two of the same Post-Dispatch Sunday Magazine, Dec. 8, 1935 is a story of my children but the last paragraph mentions a book I wrote about three years ago on the Lindbergh case. I knew it was only a matter of time when some innocent man or woman would be accused. I hoped that none such would be convicted. I wish to send you a copy and also a copy of a letter asking you to take no offense or to consider it an affront to one who is in a position to know from one who is far away. The nation is full of people wishing you well because we all have the love of justice in our hearts.¹³¹⁷

In another letter, written the same day and addressed to Governor Hoffman, Spencer goes on the attack in a way that appears to the theory contained in her 1933 pamphlet:

The standard of national intelligence cannot bow to that of the giggling Flemington jury which heard the testimony of Col. Charles A. Lindbergh that this was no helpless infant in arms but a child who was attending school and able to leave it’s room whenever it so desired; that Col. Lindbergh’s first words were on entering it’s room, “Ann, they have stolen our baby.” There was no evidence to his statement when it was made and none has ever been produced.¹³¹⁸

Spencer continued by questioning the testimony that concerned a “high wind” as it related to the discovery of the ransom note still sitting undisturbed on the windowsill:

The only facts were that the officers had made a great blunder by relying on Col. Lindbergh’s uned statement that his child had been kidnapped and failed to search for a lost child and so determined to find a way to save their own standing by convicting someone on a charge of a crime that has never been shown to have been committed. That child was out of it’s room and dead is no crime. How could it continue to live contending with starvation, exhaustion, thirst, freezing and carnivorous beast of prey tearing off all of it’s limbs but one, all of it’s internal organs and with equal access to the skull both before and after death?¹³¹

She further wrote:

Hauptmann can die as he took that beating with his own hammer – like a man, and with his honor unbesmirched but if he does our United States of America has reverted to the legal status of New Salem, Mass. when a man could say, “My cow has gone dry. Therefore my cow was bewitched. Who is the witch that bewitched my cow?”¹³²

Spencer ended the letter with this: ““Ann, they have stolen our baby” was a false statement when it was made and repetition has not and can never make it true.”¹³²¹

While I cannot prove it, armed with these two letters, it seems very likely that Spencer may have actually been, or had direct knowledge of, the person who mailed her pamphlet to the jury .

The Rules Governing the Press

No “bugs” or typewriters were permitted in the courtroom. Four cameramen could take photographs, but only when the judge was not seated on the bench. There were four messengers who were posted in the aisles who would run stories for all reporters to the wireroom, where 72 different operators were standing by. These messengers also had the unenviable task of ing which operator worked for each different reporter.¹³²²

One of the most famous violations of these rules was by Jim McKeon and Jack Whipple, who filmed part of the trial. Despite two troopers sitting next to him, Whipple was still able to operate the camera without any interference. Even more, according to McKeon, his “sound instrument was set about 20 feet from the judge.”¹³²³ Unfortunately, once the clips of the trial appeared in movie theaters across the country, the word was out and both the defense and prosecution requested the judge to “order the immediate withdraw” of cameras from the courtroom.¹³²⁴ Subsequently, Judge Trenchard “withdrew permission for all photographic coverage in the courtroom.”¹³²⁵ In his journal article on this subject, Richard Kielbowicz concluded that the camera was “so well soundproofed” that its discovery was only made once “some of the footage was released.”¹³² However, several sources indicate that the wires leading to the microphone were not concealed and that most in the courtroom were fully aware of the camera’s existence.¹³²⁷ In fact, it was a “matter of common rumor that newsreel cameras were concealed in the courtroom” and that “films were being taken with the connivance of local officials.”¹³²⁸ According to Lloyd Fisher, “everyone in the courtroom knew the pictures were being taken” and that there was “no doubt” in his mind that “officers who were supposed to see that no pictures were taken knew” about it as well.¹³² Others believed it was not only known, but that court officials, and possibly even the judge, were paid to pretend they were unaware.¹³³ One source claimed that the stifling heat, which had caused several to out, was partly due to the “high-powered” bulbs used to enhance the films, which had been “surreptitiously substituted” for ordinary ones.¹³³¹

Eavesdropping

Lloyd Fisher complained bitterly that it was “impossible” to have a “fair conference” with his client. During Hauptmann’s incarceration in Flemington, he would ask policemen to “withdraw,” but they would only move “not more than twenty feet away and refuse to close the door,” always being within earshot, where even “whispers could be overheard.”¹³³² Fisher said he became aware of the possibility of a “dictaphone” or other listening device within the “immediate vicinity” of Hauptmann’s cell but that Sheriff Curtiss swore to him “on a number of occasions” that there “wasn’t.”¹³³³ Any question Fisher “wanted to keep secret” had to be written on a pad with Hauptmann writing the response.¹³³⁴ We know now that Fisher was right to be worried, with a series of reports at the NJSP Archives to prove it. Known to most researchers as the “Stockburger Reports,” everything Hauptmann did or said during his stay in the Flemington jail was meticulously documented. Only troopers who spoke German were assigned this post, so whether he spoke English to his lawyers or German to his wife, it was all taken down and submitted to Schwarzkopf, who ed it along to Wilentz who would, in turn, use that information against Hauptmann in court wherever possible.

One of the biggest concerns was the possibility of a hidden microphone in the jury room. On Sunday, February 10, men working on the courtroom windows “accidentally” discovered two wires which led from the jury room to the press room near the balcony.¹³³⁵ The day before deliberations began, rumors swirled that yet another similar ploy existed, ready to capture the deliberations, but authorities quickly denied these reports.¹³³ It was said that “special locks” were placed on the jury room door and windows, and that the entire room was thoroughly searched.¹³³⁷ This was true. On February 13, prior to the start of deliberations, Detectives Dolan and O’Connor of the New York City Police Department were detailed to search the jury room. Dolan and O’Connor were not only police officers but were also “wiremen” with expertise in “wire hookups.”¹³³⁸ They were tasked to search for any device that a reporter may have installed to overhear the jury. After the verdict, Captain Lamb discovered a “short wave radio transmitter” hidden behind the judge’s bench near the Law Library.¹³³ The NJSP believed that this device had relayed the verdict to a “receiving set outside” the courthouse.¹³⁴

Subpoenas & es

For those permitted entrance to the trial, the sheriff was to ensure there was a certain number of seats for counsel, press, and witnesses, with additional seats for spectators with es, good for half a day. Those with morning es left to make room for those with afternoon es. It was an efficient plan which unfortunately did not work. On the first day of the trial, there was as many people standing and there were seated. Fisher claimed that spectators even occupied the “space in front of the bench provided for counsel tables” and that at almost every session, they had to ask people “to move out of their chairs surrounding the counsel table.”¹³⁴¹ There were many reasons for this. For one, State police officers could be seen “holding whole rows of seats for their particular friends.”¹³⁴² In Governor Hoffman’s manuscript for Liberty Magazine, he mentioned “the practice of attorneys from both sides” misusing subpoenas by issuing them to “friends” under the guise of being “witnesses” to ensure they had a seat at the trial.¹³⁴³ Wilentz issued special engraved es, their cost buried in the legitimate trial expenses. Lloyd Fisher wrote that “on any given day, in the space set aside for State witnesses might be found Jack Benny, Frank Frisch, the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, Ozzie Nelson….”¹³⁴⁴ Fisher believed this practice had the “effect of increasing what already was a very sympathetic audience” for the State.¹³⁴⁵ In Fisher’s experience, “the attitude of an audience” tends to “impress a jury more or less,” and he “always considered this a very vital factor” in this case.¹³⁴

The NJSP was told to allow the holders of the Wilentz es into the courtroom, not by the normal route, but by a shortcut through the warden’s office. Fisher complained to Warden McCrea and called attention to this at a conference with Judge Trenchard.¹³⁴⁷ During this meeting, Sheriff Curtiss was asked how many subpoenas had been issued for the “session.” He answered “100.”¹³⁴⁸ The judge, prosecution, and defense teams agreed to limit the number of subpoenas to “fourteen” and then “refuse to honor any more es” through the warden’s office.¹³⁴ Unfortunately, the State did not honor this arrangement and Warden McCrea started to deny access, not only to the holders, but to the Troopers

apparently escorting them in.

McCrea Vs. DeGaetano

This led to a confrontation between Warden McCrea and Detective DeGaetano. On January 25, DeGaetano made several trips to the warden’s office on errands for Captain Lamb and later for Assistant AG Peacock, without incident. However, before returning from his final trip, he was accompanied by New York City police, with subpoenas. As they attempted to enter the warden’s office, they found it locked. The constable stationed at the door was engaged in conversation with Corporal Horn inside the office and did not respond when DeGaetano knocked. The police moved to the warden’s front door, McCrea immediately bolting the door as DeGaetano went to open it.¹³⁵ DeGaetano said he was a New Jersey State Police officer and needed access, but McCrea ignored him. DeGaetano then claimed he had “medicine” for Peacock. According to the report, Warden McCrea responded “I am letting no son-of-a-bitch in.”¹³⁵¹ DeGaetano then threatened to punch McCrea “in the nose,”¹³⁵² but McCrea still refused to open the door. This matter carried over to January 28, when DeGaetano now accompanied by Colonel Schwarzkopf, was again refused entrance to the warden’s office. But Schwarzkopf made verification and he was able to enter.¹³⁵³ On learning of this, Captain Lamb ordered DeGaetano to return to the warden’s office and take note of those “investigators” being “refused ittance by the constables.”¹³⁵⁴ DeGaetano was approached by Warden McCrea, who asked his name and told him to “get out of here.” DeGaetano informed him he was there under orders from Captain Lamb, but McCrea responded “I don’t give a God damn who sent you here, get out, get out, get out.” DeGaetano left to report the matter to Lamb.¹³⁵⁵

Eventually Wilentz heard about this, and that those given his special es were being denied access through the warden’s office. According to Lloyd Fisher:

The Attorney General issued word to the Warden that unless he honored all es for him, he would have him cited by Justice Trenchard for contempt, and of course the Warden honored all es of the Attorney General and permitted 67 to go in that day. On another occasion, the Warden advised me 125 es came through.¹³⁵

By the time of Wilentz’s summation, Fisher believed that “half the people in the court room were on his es.”¹³⁵⁷

Line of people with es waiting to gain entranced into the Flemington Courthouse. (1935) (Author’s Collection)

Reilly’s Crazy “Blunders”

Hauptmann complained to Lloyd Fisher about Reilly’s inaccessibility. Many times, he requested to meet with Reilly to discuss the case, but the few times Reilly did visit Hauptmann, he only remained “three to five minutes.” On one occasion, Reilly visited Hauptmann “under the influence of liquor” and Hauptmann couldn’t have a meaningful conversation with him. All that Reilly said was “don’t worry, there is no jury in the whole world who can convict you” before he left “singing.¹³⁵⁸

How my chief counsel at the trial acted or how he could act so, I can not comprehend. According to my opinion, I believe that I am 100% certain when I say that he worked together with the prosecutor. I had an opportunity to explain my case to him only five minutes. He simply did not come to me, or if he came for three to five minutes, he was often drunk. How could I talk with him then.¹³⁵

Among the many blunders and baffling “tactics” Reilly employed, chief among them was that he was calling witnesses to the stand that none of the other defense co-counsels were aware of. According to Fisher:

The mystery of what our defense was going to be steadily deepened. Day after day, Pope and Rosencrans and I would sit at that table and hear Reilly call out the names of witnesses, of whom we never heard and of whose testimony or possible testimony we had no more idea than the dumbest society spectator, who

had come in on one of the Attorney General’s special es.¹³

In fact, Fisher recalled that “…the four of the defense counsel were never on a single occasion able to sit down in the quiet of a room and discuss the manner and method of their defense.”¹³ ¹ Fisher, Pope, and Rosencrans repeatedly urged Reilly to attend conferences, and while they waited in Fisher’s office for him to arrive, Reilly never appeared, choosing to speak to the press instead.¹³ ² On the one occasion Reilly did attend a defense team meeting, he brought “at least twenty-five reporters and cameramen,” which naturally prevented any meaningful discussion.¹³ ³

Before delving into Reilly’s next blunder, something rather interesting needs mentioning. Fisher claimed that “previous to the kidnapping” Lindbergh “had not been particularly popular among his Hunterdon and Mercer County neighbors”:

His retiring, rather cold nature had dimmed at close range his halo of national hero. But now the halo was shining again. Anyone who was on Lindy’s side in the Hauptmann case was a hero. Anyone who opposed him was a skunk.¹³ ⁴

And Reilly perpetrated his next major gaffe just as Lindbergh’s popularity was at its height, asking Lindbergh on the stand if he believed Hauptmann was guilty of the kidnapping. This, Fisher said, left even Lindbergh “dumbfounded” and he “turned to the Court in bewildered amazement.”¹³ ⁵

Q. [Reilly]: Colonel, I will 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; is that correct?

The Witness (to the Court): Shall I answer?

The Court: Yes.

A. I do.¹³

Fisher said that once Lindbergh answered the entire courtroom “gasped.”¹³ ⁷

This was the break for which the prosecution had been praying, for which they didn’t dare to hope. What Colonel Lindbergh thought on this subject or any other had absolutely no standing as evidence in court, except as the cross-examining counsel gave it standing by asking such a question.¹³ ⁸

Wilentz would not have asked such a question because the court would never have allowed it.

Yet, the defense itself, in the person of its chief counsel, proceeded to ask the question, to give the prosecution just the opening it sought. It was the turning point in the case. The jury never recovered from the blow of hearing this positive, damning accusation from Colonel Lindbergh’s own lips.¹³

Even worse, this was the answer Reilly had expected to hear. Prior to the trial, Lindbergh had expressed “any number of times” that he had in fact believed Hauptmann guilty,¹³⁷ so he naturally replied “I do” to Reilly’s question.

The effect of this answer, a personal opinion of the guilt of Hauptmann, to a question asked by the defendant’s own counsel, undoubtedly weighed heavily upon the jury.¹³⁷¹

Lloyd Fisher said that he, and everyone else he knew in the legal profession, believed this was the “most absurd question ever asked of a witness in a criminal trial.”¹³⁷² Ellis Parker described it this way:

If asked by the State and allowed by the Court would have been grounds for reversal. It is the most damnable thing I have ever seen. The way he handled his witnesses and the class he put on, without even interrogating them, shows there is something wrong in chinatown.¹³⁷³

The next and perhaps most critical blunder was Reilly’s ission that the corpse discovered in the woods outside Hopewell was indeed that of the Lindbergh child.

The Corpus Delecti Dispute

Juror Ethel Stockton recalled the dispute between Reilly and Fisher, after Reilly had conceded the corpse found was that of Charles Lindbergh Jr.¹³⁷⁴ This dispute occurred because a major part of the defense’s rested on challenging the corpse’s identity:

Without proving the identity of the body, the state could not have convicted Hauptmann of murder. And there was much upon which the defense could have leaned to dispute the identity of the baby’s body.¹³⁷⁵

Fisher echoed this:

One of the chief tasks of the prosecution was, of course, to prove corpus delicti. This is a duty which is incumbent on the State in every murder case. In the absence of such proof, there is no case. And in this instance, there was certainly grave question as to the existence of such proof. I knew from outside sources that the most worrisome question in the minds of the prosecution was whether or not they would be able to prove that the body found on the Hopewell hillside was in fact the body of the Lindbergh child.¹³⁷

Fisher knew Reilly was aware of this and, in fact, had remarked to him, as well as to Fred Pope, that the “identification of the body” must be “fought to the bitter end.”¹³⁷⁷ Fisher’s previous examinations had all been formulated to this end and he felt the strategy was working until Reilly suddenly and unexpectantly proclaimed to the court:

I will say now that there has never been any claim but that this was Colonel Lindbergh’s child that was found there….¹³⁷⁸

This completely wiped out all the preparation and efforts made on this point, to say nothing of the catastrophic damage to Hauptmann’s case. Fisher, who was planning his cross examination of St. Michael’s Orphanage custodian Elmira Dormer, could not believe what Reilly had just single-handedly done, in destroying one of the team’s “strongest defenses.”¹³⁷ At the moment of Reilly’s declaration, Fisher said “you could have heard a pin drop,” Pope leaning to him to say, “Well I’ll be God damned!”¹³⁸ Fisher looked at a stunned Rosencrans, then glanced over at the prosecution table and saw “the relief on their faces.” Wilentz turned to Reilly and said, “Thank you, Mr. Reilly, thank you!” and “bowed” as he repeated, “Thank you very, very much, Mr. Reilly!”¹³⁸¹ This was more than Fisher could bear. He rose and left the courtroom with the witness still

on the stand. Enraged, Fisher went to an anteroom and began preparing his formal withdrawal from the case¹³⁸² when Deputy Low walked in with a message from Hauptmann, begging him to return.¹³⁸³ It was this alone that brought Fisher back to the defense table.

Ellis Parker could not believe what had occurred. Before the trial, he had wondered how the State would prove the corpse’s identity by “looking at the case as though I had it myself.”

Proving of the body and where the murder occurred was a hard thing and when Riley [sic] itted the identity of the child and where the murder occurred, which the State, I know, couldn’t prove as in the summation of the Attorney General he practically had the child killed in three ways – smothered, hit in the head with the chisel, and fell off of the ladder. Riley [sic] itting these things, shows what I have stated before, that there was something wrong. You will recall the kidnapping took place in Hunterdon County and the body was found in Mercer County. Under our present laws, a person should be tried for murder where the body is found, as the law presumes the murder occurred there, but to try it in the County where the body was snatched, you have to prove the murder beyond a certainty.¹³⁸⁴

Even a shocked Anna Hauptmann was aware of Reilly’s devastating error. After the session concluded, she waited to confront him about it, Reilly explaining:

Well, I had to do it, I don’t believe it was the body of the Lindbergh baby, but if I didn’t, they would bring Mrs. Morrow and put her on the witness stand, have her show a curl of the baby’s hair, and all this would cause sympathy for the Lindbergh’s and be bad for Richard.¹³⁸⁵

Egbert Rosencrans, Edward Reilly, and C. Lloyd Fisher. (NJSP)

Reverend Vincent Godfrey Burns

The day before deliberations began, Wilentz was finishing his summation when a voice cried out:

[A Voice]: If your Honor please –

[Mr. Wilentz]: If your Honor please, I want that man taken out. Take him out.

[Mr. Reilly]: If your Honor please, may I address you?¹³⁸

The rest of the exchange was as follows:

[Mr. Reilly]: May we have the jury polled as to whether they heard what he said?

[Mr. Wilentz]: Did he say anything?

[Mr. Reilly]: He shouted out something.

[Mr. Wilentz]: If he did, it would be in your favor.

[Mr. Reilly]: No, it wouldn’t.

[Mr. Wilentz]: Did he say anything? I didn’t hear anything.

[The Court]: I don’t know whether he did or whether he didn’t. I didn’t hear anything myself except “Your Honor.”

[Mr. Wilentz]: I stopped him as soon as he started.

[Mr. Reilly]: I think 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 see me once and I threw him out. He was here the very first day dressed that way and I had the trooper throw him out. He is the brother of that man that escaped in Georgia, Burns.

[Mr. Wilentz]: I think he ought to be put in jail anyway.

[Mr. Reilly]: So do I.¹³⁸⁷

Ironically, it would be Reilly, not Burns, who would be in an asylum two years later.¹³⁸⁸ But Reilly was correct about this man, the Reverend Vincent Godfrey

Burns, the brother of Robert Elliot Burns, the famous Georgia chain gang escapee who had come to New Jersey and convinced Governor Moore not to return him.¹³⁸ The courtroom was in an uproar as Reverend Burns, perched on a windowsill, continued to yell:

I have a confession that was made to me by the man who committed this crime! ¹³

Adding to the spectacle was Burns’s full religious clerical garb, but as he attempted to command the room, Constable Alvah Niper forcefully yanked him off the sill and clamped a hand over his mouth, and Burns reacted by striking Niper in the face as he attempted to free himself.¹³ ¹ Wilentz called to have Burns removed as Judge Trenchard rose and banged his gavel. With other troopers assisting Niper, Burns was finally taken to a backroom. It was a full 10 before minutes order was restored.

For the first time, Hauptmann was frightened. This outburst occurred just as Wilentz finished viciously attacking him with epithets like “beast,” “worm,” “animal,” and “snake.” Hauptmann supposedly told Reilly…

…when the minister started to yell, I figured out, maybe, it was a man who was going to shoot me. I do not fear what the jury will do. They have to say I am innocent because they know I am. But I thought that was a crazy man who got all excited about Wilentz’s speech and was going to kill me.¹³ ²

Having restored order, Judge Trenchard instructed the jury to disregard Burns’s outburst. Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, Burns was frisked for weapons. Soon, Wilentz and Hauck approached, furious at the possibility of a mistrial due to Burn’s antics. Seething with anger, Wilentz told Burns he would be charged with contempt of court, and he was escorted off the premises.¹³ ³

The Charge

On February 13, 1935, at 10:05 AM, Judge Trenchard began his charge to the jury, one which drew decidedly mixed reactions. Journalist and author Adela Rogers St. Johns believed Trenchard was “impartial”, while newspaperman Damon Runyon thought his words “proprosecution,”¹³ ⁴ and believed the judge’s charge “appeared to sink Hauptmann.”¹³ ⁵ Boake Carter wrote that Trenchard’s “words were extremely deliberate” and the “inflection in his voice meant everything.”¹³ Another author said Wilentz had “convinced” the judge that Hauptmann was guilty and that Trenchard’s charge “practically told the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty.”¹³ ⁷ Reporters wrote that the prosecution was “openly jubilant over the charge,” while the defense was “incensed.”¹³ ⁸ They had good cause. Trenchard asked rhetorical questions to lead the jury to only one possible conclusion, and while he did concede that the “technical objections” made by the defense were both “significant and interesting,” the “inflection of voice” in the judge’s question, “Do you believe that?” negated their points.¹³ According to George Hawke, there was absolutely no doubt of Judge Trenchard’s prejudice after reading his charge. Hawke wrote that Trenchard “overstepped the legal boundaries beyond which a trial may not tread”:

It was mainly by inference that his points were conveyed. He was, in effect, taking the jury’s discretion from them.¹⁴

Hawke’s criticism of “piling inference on inference” did not end there.

Of course, the inflection of the voice can not be shown in type or writing, but the inflection with the rhetorical question was the key to the expression of the judge’s opinion. His voice inflection precluded the jury’s taking an opposing view. He stated each question in such an emphatic way that there was no doubt about his

intentions.¹⁴ ¹

Part of Judge Trenchard’s charge involved Amandus Hochmuth, the jury who “followed the judicial voice with rapt attention” as the rest of the court sat “in utter silence” listening to each and every word:¹⁴ ²

As bearing upon the question of whether or not the defendant was present at the Lindbergh home on March 1st, 1932, you, of course, should consider the testimony of Mr. Hochmuth, along with that of other witnesses. Mr. Hochmuth lives at or about the entrance of the lane that goes up to the Lindbergh house.

He testified that on the forenoon of that day, March 1st, 1932, he saw the defendant at that point, driving rapidly from the direction of Hopewell; that he got in the ditch or dangerously near the ditch, and that he had a ladder in the car, which car was a dirty green. This testimony, if true, is highly significant. Do you think that there is any reason, upon the whole, to doubt the truth of the old man’s testimony? May he not have well and easily ed the circumstance, in view of the fact that that [sic] very night the child was carried away?¹⁴ ³

Amandus Hochmuth

Amandus Hochmuth was in his late 80s. A Hopewell Township resident who claimed he saw a man driving a car with a ladder inside “on the morning of March 1, 1932,”¹⁴ ⁴ he lived with his daughter and son-in-law, Henry Plump, a retired New York City policeman.¹⁴ ⁵ According to Lloyd Fisher, Hochmuth told several people he had not seen any strangers on March 1 and often pointed out his “inability to see.”¹⁴ It wasn’t until a tip brought the NJSP to his home in November 1934 that Hochmuth’s story became known. He claimed he had not previously told anyone about seeing Hauptmann because he wanted to avoid

publicity, and because, if he identified Hauptmann as the man in the car, it could send him “to the electric chair” and “he did not want to do that.”¹⁴ ⁷ Hochmuth’s original story was that the driver of the car, wearing a “dark blue sailor cap with a shiny peak,” was coming from Hopewell in a “greenish sedan,” took the corner by his house too wide and drove into a ditch. According to Hochmuth, the driver had to “straighten” the ladder inside, which was “laying along side the driver across the front seat from the windshield to the back seat.” Hochmuth was shown a picture of Hauptmann and said: “He looks like the man.”¹⁴ ⁸

Almost a month later, Hochmuth was escorted by Troopers Sawyer and Genz to the Flemington jail to see Hauptmann. According to Trooper Sawyer, Hochmuth “identified him as the man he saw on March 1st 1932 in the car containing a ladder.”¹⁴ Hochmuth was then brought to the Training School in West Trenton where he signed a statement saying that he was “almost positive” the man he saw at the Flemington jail was the driver who swerved into a ditch by his house on the day of the Lindbergh kidnapping.¹⁴¹ Hochmuth was also shown Hauptmann’s car and indicated in his statement that, again, he was “almost positive” it was the same one he saw. This seems straightforward and conclusive until one considers Hochmuth’s Flemington testimony:

[Reilly] Q. That’s all – pardon me, it isn’t all. Were you taken into the jail some time ago by a State trooper?

A. Yes.

Q. When? A. Oh, it is several days ago.

Q. You saw the defendant, Hauptmann, there, didn’t you?

A. I saw a figure in there, but I couldn’t see him.¹⁴¹¹

Next, if we examine Hochmuth’s pre-trial statement about the car he saw:

Q. What kind of car was that? You saw the car? A coupe or sedan?

A. It was a two-seated car.¹⁴¹²

Hochmuth went on to explain that he couldn’t “exactly tell” if the car at the Training School matched, because the car he claimed to see on March 1 had “tipped over into the ditch,” but that it “looked like the car.” Next, he was asked about the driver:

Q. You saw the man who was in that car? A. Yes.

Q. Have you seen that man since? A. I can’t exactly say I have seen him.

Q. Is Hauptmann the man who was in that car? A. I saw a picture that resembles him very much.

Q. You would say Hauptman was the man? A. I can’t say that. I can’t say that. The face that looked and stopped – he looked up at me – it was a red face – the features were the same – he looked as if he had seen a ghost – he stopped and looked at me for about fifteen seconds.

Q. What did he do then? A. I made a step towards the car and he started again.

Q. You have seen Hauptmann at the jail? A. I could not say exactly.

Q. Have you seen him any other place besides the jail? A. No, I can’t say. I have been thinking it over if I had seen him.

Q. You will be asked the question “Was Hauptmann the man” and you will have to answer yes or no. A. I can’t say it was or I can’t say it was not.¹⁴¹³

Back and forth it goes, with the same result – Hochmuth wasn’t sure. This should have ended any notion of putting Hochmuth on the stand.

Q. Suppose you went to Flemington and sat in the court and studied Hauptmann for a while – do you think you would be more sure of your identification.

A. Well, I really hate to identify him.

Q. Why? A. Because I am not quite sure. In the prison there I saw him standing up. Well you see there is a difference looking up that way and looking down.¹⁴¹⁴

This statement is almost too painful to read. Eventually, Hochmuth reveals that his daughter did not want him involved.

A. They told me I should not interfere with it – my own folks said keep out of it Papa. I said “I know what I am doing.” You see it is pretty hard on a man like me – my age – to say is that the fellow.¹⁴¹⁵

Then came the all-too-familiar tactic:

Q. You must this – We know he is the man. We know other people saw him in that neighborhood. People right up above you saw him there. We know a man saw him because he gave a description of him that night, the same night of the day you saw him. This man gave a description of him and this description tallies exactly with the picture you picked out.¹⁴¹

But Hochmuth sees this as his “out:”

A. There is another man who saw the car as far as I know – that student. He saw the car more. They way I heard that he saw the ladder in the car too. My daughter tells me he was on the corner there – my daughter picked him up and

took him up where he wanted to go.¹⁴¹⁷

Similar to Condon, Hochmuth would also find a way to testify in Flemington that Hauptmann was the man in question. He identified him sitting between the “trooper and the other man with the white shirt on.”¹⁴¹⁸

Once Governor Hoffman began his re-investigation, Hochmuth’s perjury found its way into the mix, after Hoffman learned that Hochmuth was nearly blind. Lloyd Fisher showed Hoffman an affidavit sworn out by Joseph A. McGovern, a Department of Public Welfare investigator who had been assigned Hochmuth’s case when he applied for old-age security relief in 1932.

During the course of the conversation Hochmuth said he was frail, in bad health and his eyesight was failing him because of having cataracts on both eyes. The son was present also said that the old man’s vision was very bad and backed up the father in saying that he had cataracts on both eyes and was failing in eyesight.¹⁴¹

Another came from Joseph Contenti, a friend of Henry Plump who took Hochmuth to his home in 1934. During his visit, Hochmuth nearly tripped over a chair and, once seated, had to constantly feel around the table for a nearby wineglass. Contenti commented on this, Hochmuth replying “I am a very, very old man. My eye sight is no good, it hasn’t been any good for some years,” later adding, “when you get as old as I am and your eyes have been getting poorer and weaker all the time, doctors cannot do anything for you.”¹⁴²

Armed with these s, Fisher wrote Wilentz:

I beg to advise that it is my earnest belief that the State’s witness, Amandus Hochmuth, about whose testimony Justice Trenchard especially commented on in his charge to the jury, falsely testified while he was on the witness stand during the Hauptmann trial in Flemington. I am in possession of documentary evidence indicating clearly that the testimony of Hochmuth is false, in at least one vital particular.

I have written to the Prosecutor suggesting that the same zeal be displayed in investigating the possibility of perjury on the part of Hochmuth as was displayed in the case of Benjamin Heier, a witness who appeared for the defense.¹⁴²¹

Hochmuth had testified in Flemington that “my eyes are alright,”¹⁴²² but Fisher was able to obtain his 1932 records from the Division of Old Age Security of the New York City Department of Public Welfare, which showed that, in addition to Joseph McGovern, another investigator, Edward Carey, said that Hochmuth’s “health is very poor, applicant is partly blind, suffering from a complication of diseases.”¹⁴²³ Another of Hochmuth’s blindness came from William Driver, a contractor from Trenton. He recalled that, in 1934, he and other contractors were building a small footbridge on Plump and Hochmuth’s property. Hochmuth used to walk near where the men worked and it became “quite apparent” that “Hochmuth could hardly see.”¹⁴²⁴ Driver said that, on one occasion, Hochmuth led him to a “stone gate post” and claimed it “was a piece of wood he wanted for a chopping block.”¹⁴²⁵ Adolph Hesse knew Hochmuth well and said he “walked and acted like a person who could not see clearly.” In fact, once, Hesse’s father had to speak to Hochmuth before being recognized.¹⁴²

Other issues came to light, a reporter recalling that he was among a group who interviewed Mrs. Plump several weeks before the trial:

Mrs. Plum [sic], stated to me in the presence of several other newspapermen from my office that her father had nothing to do with this case, and why would they ask an old man like him to tell a story about something that he did not know

anything about. She also spoke about his eyesight at that time and said that he never saw Hauptmann, their house at all. Mrs. Plum [sic], told that her father told the police when they called at the house for him that, he knew nothing about the case. “They held my father up at the state police headquarters for three days and would not let him come home at all. We were worried until one day he called us and said he would be home soon.”¹⁴²⁷

Governor Hoffman also became aware of a letter written to Reilly from New Jersey State Inspector of Railroads W. H. Thomas, who worked in the Hopewell area in the summer of 1932. On August 6, Thomas met man he later identified as Hochmuth, who “seemed to think” he was “working on the Lindbergh baby case.”¹⁴²⁸ Thomas wrote that Hochmuth “volunteered some advice and suggestions to follow if I wished to help solve the case.”

He told me that the baby was deformed, webbed feet and was otherwise deformed and that the case was “an inside job because if it was an outside job strangers would have been seen in the neighborhood and that he lived near there and had not seen any strangers at all or anyone acting in a suspicious manner prior to the kidnaping.”¹⁴²

Thomas assured the Republican Hoffman that he was not “playing politics,” despite having been member of the Mercer County Democratic Committee for the past 15 years. Thomas further wrote that he was…

…ready and willing to appear before any Grand Jury, Legislative investigating Committee, Justice Trenchard or the Attorney General of New Jersey and under oath furnish information of my own personal knowledge that one Amandus Hochmuth did under oath commit perjury at Flemington during the trial of Richard Bruno Hauptmann.¹⁴³

By early December 1937, Governor Hoffman had gathered and read through all the evidence, and was convinced Hochmuth had committed perjury. He instructed Lieutenant Wallace to re-interview him. Hochmuth knew Wallace from previous in the case, which, it was hoped, would allow Hochmuth to speak freely. The interview was conducted on December 10 at Hochmuth’s home, in the presence of his daughter and son-in-law. Hochmuth retold the story about the car going into the ditch, saying he “got a good look” at the driver, who straightened “a ladder that had slid forward in the car.”¹⁴³¹ Wallace then interviewed Mrs. Plump who backed up her father’s story. She indicated that on March 1, 1932, she had been in Trenton and, upon her return, her father told her that “a man was stuck in the ditch and it must have been a window cleaner going to the Lindbergh home as he had a ladder in the car.”¹⁴³² Four days later, Lieutenant Wallace returned to measure the distance from Hochmuth’s porch to the ditch, finding it to be approximately “35 feet.” Hochmuth asked if there was any “doubt” that Hauptmann was the driver and offered further proof that he was, telling Wallace a new story, as recorded in his memorandum:

Sometime previous to March 1st, 1932, the date of which is unknown to Mr. Hochmuth, he was walking on the Hopewell Road, and met a man on the bridge and they had a conversation regarding work. Mr. Hochmuth advised this man that he was German and asked him what part of he came from. He also asked him his name and this stranger advised him that his name was Hauptmann and that he came from Saxony. This man was not in the possession of any automobile, nor does Mr. Hochmuth know how he arrived or left. Mr. Hochmuth advised that his daughter, nor his son-in-law, had ever heard this story. The only person other than the undersigned is that of a clergyman who had visited his home and discussed the case. Mr. Hochmuth stated that he is of the opinion that there are others involved in the Lindbergh case with Hauptmann.¹⁴³³

Wallace asked if Hochmuth would be willing to accompany him to the Hotel Hildebrecht the following day for another interview, and he “gladly” agreed.¹⁴³⁴ Present at the interview were Leon Ho-age and Governor Hoffman, who were amazed to hear the new story he told. Hochmuth’s only answer as to why he hadn’t mentioned it before was “I kept that to myself.” Despite telling Wallace he did not know how Hauptmann “arrived or left,” Hochmuth told Ho-age that after his conversation Hauptmann “went up the road to Blawenburg.”¹⁴³⁵ Ho-age then asked Hochmuth about seeing Hauptmann in jail:

[Hochmuth]: Well, then I went to New York again and they came after me there and took me to New Jersey to identify him. Well, I went to the Prison there and it was getting kind of dark and he was sitting reading and he sat this way. I watched him to identify him and then he came straight up to me.

[Ho-age]: Face to face, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Then is when it was getting dark? A. Yes, it was getting dark in Prison, don’t you see. Then Genz of the State Police took me out again and I says I can’t identify that man there. I want to see him just the way I saw him before. I didn’t tell them I saw him on the bridge. Then I said “It looks bad because he is German and I am German” and the next morning they went after me again.

Q. You went to see him twice? A. Yes. And I says “Give me a seat so I can see him well.” That was in the courtroom and I didn’t know how the courtroom was, so they put me down and then I looked it all over for a while and then I saw him. I caught his eye and I’m sure he saw me and he looked just like the man I saw before. I saw him in the morning and again in the afternoon.

Q. When did you decide that he was the same man? A. In the morning and again in the afternoon.

Q. In the morning you were sure? A. In the morning I couldn’t see exactly because the light was peculiar there. Well, now, I says, that’s him. I saw his face flushing just as red as it did the time he look out of the car. Twice.

Q. What do you mean “twice?” A. Twice in court. He ed by me once and then I saw him sitting there. He looked afraid of me. I caught his eye several times during the time he was sitting

there.¹⁴³

Hochmuth was then asked about his eyesight:

Q. Now, how did you consider your eyesight was in 1932? A. Well, just as good as it is now.

Q. How good is it now? A. I can see a good ways but they can’t get me no glasses to read with. I have got to read without. They tell me I shouldn’t try to read with these or with anything to read as long as I can without, and then let the eyes rest.

Q. Did you ever have cataracts in your eyes? A. No.

Q. When you applied for relief in New York you said you had cataracts on your eyes. A. No. I didn’t even see any of those fellows. I only saw one and he was a Jew. He said “What religion are you?” I said “A Jew” and he said “I’m another.”¹⁴³⁷

Governor Hoffman then reminded Hochmuth that there were documents with his signature which stated this. Ho-age then decided to test Hochmuth’s eyesight himself:

Q. Well now, can you look across the room now to tell what is on the top of the radio there? A. In the corner?

Q. Yes. A. No – I can’t make out.

Q. You can’t tell what is on top of it? (A distance of less than ten feet). A. Do you want to examine my eyes? Are you an eye doctor?

Q. No. Now, that has been the condition of your eyes for several years? A. Yes.

NOTE:- At 3:30 in the afternoon on a clear day, with five different electric lights in the room, Hochmuth could not identify an object less than ten feet away.¹⁴³⁸

On the last page of this document, the items Hochmuth failed to see are identified:

NOTE:- On top of the radio was a package and a loving cup about fourteen inches high filled with red, white, and blue flowers about ten inches high.¹⁴³

And this was the man who Judge Trenchard so impressed the Flemington jury

with his charge, declaring he had no reason to lie.

Jury Retires

Judge Trenchard’s charge to the jury ended at 11:12 AM, the jury retiring to the deliberation room at 11:23. They were not permitted to leave until a verdict was reached, and would even have to sleep in their chairs should deliberations continue overnight.¹⁴⁴ After the defense presented various objections and exceptions taken, Wilentz suggested that only attorneys and press should be allowed to remain in the courtroom. Judge Trenchard agreed. Officers Oden Baggstrom, John H. Reed, Harry Fields, s Robinson, Pearl Conover, and Susan Dilts attended the jury during its deliberations.¹⁴⁴¹

Scene

As soon as Judge Trenchard left the bench, the courtroom erupted in activity. Despite clearing the court of all “spectators,” there were some who “chiseled” their way in and remained among the officials and reporters.¹⁴⁴² The room was filled with blue smoke from photographers’ flashbulbs, the floor littered with cigarette butts, scraps of food, and other garbage. Paper planes flew through the air, and one exhausted reporter even fell asleep in the jury box.¹⁴⁴³ Wilentz ed through the crowd, eventually making his way to the jury box himself and exclaiming, “this is where I should have been in the first place.”¹⁴⁴⁴ With every such wisecrack came howls of laughter from reporters. Meanwhile, Reilly, apparently tired of prancing around the balcony, came down and sat in the witness chair, pretending to interview himself. Before long, he grew tired of the act, lit a cigar, and pulled out a newspaper.¹⁴⁴⁵ Many were drinking brandy mixed with whatever they could find, some played checkers and others gambled, played cards, or pitched pennies against the wall. A stenographer, a deputy sheriff, troopers, attorneys, reporters, and other newspapermen began shooting crap.¹⁴⁴ Walter Winchell supposedly gambled away $10.00,¹⁴⁴⁷ while Lloyd

Fisher made around $750.00, saying that it was “more than I earned during the entire trial.”¹⁴⁴⁸ Yet another reporter thought it would be funny to sit on the judge’s bench and pound the gavel. Much to his delight, everyone in the courtroom instantly snapped to attention, nearly causing a riot when the joke was realized.¹⁴⁴ Adela Rogers St. Johns said she was “hot and cold at the same time,” and that her “lungs hurt” as she smoked one cigarette after another.¹⁴⁵ To complete this bizarre scene, Reilly began belting out the song “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling,” soon accompanied by Rogers St. Johns.¹⁴⁵¹

At 9:30 PM, the lights went out, engulfing the courtroom in darkness. Pandemonium ensued. Everyone lit matches, some laughed, some sang, and others screamed. Wilentz and Schwarzkopf both shouted for order, prompting the deputy sheriffs to do the same. Many believed this had been done purposefully, as a type of signal,¹⁴⁵² but The Hunterdon County Democrat reported the cause was a blown “fuse.”¹⁴⁵³ According to Deputy Sheriff David Kline, “someone cut the wires on the corner of the jail,” but since there were electricians on standby, the situation was quickly “repaired.”¹⁴⁵⁴ Once the lights came back on, a cheer erupted and police demanded to see trial es. Anyone without one was escorted out.¹⁴⁵⁵ Meanwhile, a massive crowd had gathered outside, huge flood lights and flares illuminating the scene. Someone threw a rock through one of the courthouse windows.¹⁴⁵ Gone was the circus-like atmosphere of vendors and barkers who had filled Flemington’s streets throughout the trial. The crowd was now a lynch mob, one that demanded a guilty verdict – and Hauptmann’s death.

The Verdict

The New York Daily News

All the reporters knew that access to the jury room was through Sheriff Curtiss. The Associated Press and the Hearst newspapers had been handing out bribes

during the trial to scoop the verdict.¹⁴⁵⁷ Robert Conway had not made any such offer – until the last minute. He made a deal for “$500 to the under-sheriff” and “$500 to be given to the juror who agreed to co-operate.”¹⁴⁵⁸ Additional sums were promised for whatever amount of advance time was ahead of the tip. This worked because Conway’s happened to be the last offer. Conway later explained that a “bribe-taker” is only interested in the “money he hasn’t got” and so forgets about earlier payments and obligations.¹⁴⁵ At 10:15 PM, Curtiss “sent a message into the jury-room asking whether or not they had reached a verdict and if not [he] was preparing to lock them up over night.”¹⁴ Immediately after, the tip-off occurred, when Sheriff Curtiss ran into the courtroom shouting “Barry!”¹⁴ ¹ It was now 10:20, and most in the room knew this meant a verdict had been reached, Curtiss summoning “Deputy Sheriff Keith Barrowcliff” to the jury room to be officially advised¹⁴ ² before he could toll the bell to officially announce a verdict had been reached. What no one knew was that Conway already had the verdict.¹⁴ ³ Curtiss had “pulled his top hair,” the signal for “guilty, 1st degree.”¹⁴ ⁴ Curtiss then disappeared into the judge’s chambers.¹⁴ ⁵ Wilentz immediately ordered the doors bolted and the window shades pulled down,¹⁴ to prevent any communication to those outside.¹⁴ ⁷ A trooper stood guard at every door and window, with orders no one leave the courtroom “until dismissed by the court.”¹⁴ ⁸ The bell rang, and at about 10:30 PM Hauptmann was led into the courtroom, handcuffed to Lieutenant Smith and Deputy Low.¹⁴ At 10:35 PM, Sheriff Curtiss led the jury into the courtroom.¹⁴⁷ Captain Snook was just outside jury room door as they exited, noticing they looked “haggard” and “walked with staggering steps.”¹⁴⁷¹ As the jury returned to the box, many in the courtroom saw that juror Verna Snyder had been crying.¹⁴⁷² Hauptmann, studying the jurors’ faces, must have noticed too. As they filed in, one of the male jurors tugged at his hair emphatically.¹⁴⁷³ Reporters noticed this and thought it may have been a signal of some sort, but none could guess what it meant and when Conway later recalled this “stunt,” he could no longer the juror’s name. Both Conway and Grace Robinson recalled a “delay” once the sheriff returned to the jury room, and it was believed this may have been deliberately done by Curtiss or “our juror” to get more money.¹⁴⁷⁴ In the meantime, Conway rose from his seat in the balcony and crept to the door behind which telegrapher Joe Austin waited for the information with his “wire set up.”¹⁴⁷⁵ The New York Daily News’ flash of the verdict was “20 minutes ahead of AP.”¹⁴⁷

The Mistake of the Century

The Associated Press devised a plan to use a shortwave transmitter in the courtroom to relay the verdict to a man in the courthouse attic, who would send a newsflash to their in the sheriff’s office.¹⁴⁷⁷ But their announcement was wrong, indicating the verdict was “guilty and life.”¹⁴⁷⁸ This mistake has various explanations, the most probable being that another transmitter in the courtroom sent a message which was mistakenly received by the AP in the attic, who understood it as the pre-arranged code for “Guilty – Life Imprisonment.”¹⁴⁷ In fact, the man in the attic, O. K. Price, claimed to have received “a couple of 4’s and went ahead,” since “4” had been the designated the signal for “Life.”¹⁴⁸ However, his story changed somewhat when he explained they might have been “V’s,” but that the “second operator” in the attic agreed they were 4’s.¹⁴⁸¹ The jury was re-seated, nervously waiting in the box when, at 10:38 PM, Curtiss summoned Judge Trenchard.¹⁴⁸² It wasn’t until 10:41 that the AP killed their story,¹⁴⁸³ their mistake almost as famous as the verdict itself.

Other News Organizations

Joe Morris of the United Press wrote that “one newspaper was persistently reported to have arranged with a court attendant to smuggle out word of the verdict” and that there had been “reason to believe” this was true.¹⁴⁸⁴ But while the UP did discuss certain strategies concerning this, they decided to use the “simplest possible method” – a slip of paper pushed over the gallery door immediately after the jury rendered its verdict.¹⁴⁸⁵

James Kilgallen of the International News Service claimed that many reporters had set up a system to flash the verdict in advance. He also claimed that many “in the courtroom” had received “tips” concerning the verdict before it came in and many of them were correct.¹⁴⁸ Furthermore, he asserted that the INS had been given the correct verdict “before it was announced” in the form of an

“advanced tip,” but that he waited for the jury to announce the verdict before sending the flash. He was concerned that “anything could happen” before jury foreman Charles Walton read the verdict. This, he claimed, was in keeping with INS policy: “Get it first, but first get it right.”¹⁴⁸⁷ The INS was able to flash the correct verdict before the courtroom doors had opened by somehow getting word to their “wire room.”¹⁴⁸⁸

Judge Trenchard took his seat at 10:44 PM.¹⁴⁸ County Clerk C. Lloyd Fell instructed Hauptmann to stand, Judge Trenchard asking the jury to stand as well.¹⁴ Charles Walton read the verdict:

Guilty. We find the defendant, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, guilty of murder in the first degree.¹⁴ ¹

Reporters leapt for the courtroom door, but Judge Trenchard quickly intervened:

One moment. No person will leave the courtroom until the court is finished. Stay right where you are.¹⁴ ²

By this time, the AP had finally flashed out the correct verdict.¹⁴ ³ Reilly asked for the jury to be polled and each confirmed the verdict. It was during the polling that some said Verna Snyder “almost broke down.”¹⁴ ⁴ Judge Trenchard ordered the verdict recorded and advised anyone who desired to leave could do so “quietly” and “at once.”¹⁴ ⁵ After this, the sentence was imposed. Hauptmann was remanded to the sheriff’s custody and removed at 10:50 PM.¹⁴ Those in the courtroom reported that Fisher “was more visibly upset than” Hauptmann.¹⁴ ⁷ The Jury retired at 10:54 and Attorney General Wilentz and Prosecutor Hauck accompanied Judge Trenchard to his chambers at 11:00.¹⁴ ⁸ As the jury made their way to the Union Hotel, they were met on all sides with screams of “kill Hauptmann!” Wilentz left the courtroom with a huge smile and navigated

through the crowd, announcing he was going to Florida.¹⁴ The delirious mob reacted with wild cheers and laughter. Anna Hauptmann was also pushing her way through the crowd, subjected to the cheering celebration of her husband’s pending execution.¹⁵

Adela Rogers St. Johns

It is important to note that not all leaks were the result of bribes. In Adela Rogers St. Johns’s case, it came through friendship. Although she had not covered the kidnapping itself, she did visit Highfields and was struck by the how “bleak” and “windswept” the place was, and could not understand why the Lindberghs would choose to live in a such a place.¹⁵ ¹ She was convinced of Hauptmann’s guilt,¹⁵ ² also indicating in her book The Honeycomb that she was aware of news organizations’ “plots and plans” to tamper with the jury – “not with the verdict” itself, but to get it first.¹⁵ ³ She also revealed that while awaiting the verdict in the courtroom, at around “three o’clock” she was “told that the first ballot had been 9 to 3.”¹⁵ ⁴ Just after 10:00 PM, “one of the counsel” ed by her touching her knee in the process. He did not look at her but said “it’s the chair” as he walked by.¹⁵ ⁵ While Rogers St. John did not directly name this person, anyone who reads this entire section of her book can see that she had, in so many words, when she wrote about the various means and methods others were employing to gain inside information. She claimed her time and “female ingenuity” was spent on the “Attorney General” and the tactic “paid off.”¹⁵ The day after the verdict, she wired David Wilentz to both thank and praise him.¹⁵ ⁷ Wilentz’s response was immediate:

No words within my command can express my deep appreciation for the help which you rendered the prosecution and for the inspiration which you gave me. Among all the telegrams which I received this morning yours was the most beautiful and moved me the most. You have my everlasting thanks.¹⁵ ⁸

Captain Russel A. Snook

What Rogers St. Johns recounted is ed by what Captain Snook wrote in reply to a letter from James Clark Sellers:

During this time the Colonel and all of our organization and of course the Attorney General and his Staff endeavored to hide their anxiety with smiles. But some of the smiles were not actually forced as one would naturally conclude under the circumstances. There was a source through which quite authentic information came to us and we were pretty well acquainted at all times with what was taking place inside the locked doors. Enough said about this. Further details I will give you later.¹⁵

Jury

History records that the Flemington jury was falsely portrayed as “hicks,” impervious to greed and corruption. George Hawke wrote:

Anyone doubting the value of the jury system could take heart after this case. People in equally high positions of authority were often found wanting when these men and women of the jury shone.¹⁵¹

But as we’ve seen, history is wrong – again. But since Conway didn’t actually name the juror who revealed the verdict for the sum of $500.00, I believe there’s much to learn from the sources we do have about them. This might not only lead us to that juror’s true identity but teach us a good deal about other things. I’ve assembled quite a bit of information on the jurors. Some is consistent and some

is not. Once again, it will be up to the reader to decide what the exact truth was.

Juror #1: Charles Walton, Sr.

Charles Walton, 50, was a machinist from High Bridge, known in Hunterdon County as a former semi-pro baseball player. ¹⁵¹¹ He was a Democrat, married, with children, and prior to his selection he was rated by authorities as being “a good type of Juror for the State.”¹⁵¹²

Walton was so negatively affected by the press that he “could not believe a word written in a newspaper for months” after the trial was over.¹⁵¹³ The stress of the trial was so profound that he needed about four or five weeks to readjust to “everyday life” before returning to work.¹⁵¹⁴ A reporter offered Walton and his wife a “free trip to Florida” and “four hundred to five hundred dollars spending money” just for pictures of them “in transit” and “lounging” at the resort. They both flatly refused; to them, it wasn’t “right.”¹⁵¹⁵ Walton also claimed that reporters barged into his home snapping pictures, and had even stolen his only picture of his son and him in baseball uniforms.¹⁵¹ The jury received an offer for a vaudeville tour, an offer that did not sit well with the public when word got out they had accepted.¹⁵¹⁷ The jurors denied it,¹⁵¹⁸ but according to Lloyd Fisher, “three jurors actually signed a contract with the High Hat Club but later reconsidered.”¹⁵¹ There were also some newspaper reports that even quoted Walton as saying the jury was going to sign a vaudeville contract:

“We can all use the money,” he said. “We are not going to discuss the trial or put on any sketch about our deliberations. We are just going to appear. The people will not criticize us. It will all be very dignified. ¹⁵²

These reports claimed “291-pound housewife” Verna Snyder would go, with

even sickly Liscom Case “expected to go along with the act.”¹⁵²¹ Other reports cited Sheriff Curtiss as having announced the vaudeville offer, Mrs. Brelsford as “disclaiming it,” and, from “other sources,” that the jury was likely to “decline.”¹⁵²² On reading these reports, many outraged citizens wrote to jurors to express doubt about their motives in rendering a verdict. One man wrote:

If your proposed plan to make a “dignified,” “nice” vaudeville tour is under way, let me tell you that you will secure the unmitigated disgust of the American people if you and your townspeople so far depart from decency as to trade upon the morbid curiosity of fools.¹⁵²³

Walton wrote Captain Lamb about these letters:

Enclosed you will find a few samples of letters I am receiving every day, I wish you would please try to look up some of them. Sheriff Curtis certainly gave us lots of notoriety when he told reporters he had vaudeville contracts for us.¹⁵²⁴

This was a sore point for Fisher, who asserted:

Two or three jurors actually appeared as honor guests in one of New York’s night clubs. They also almost immediately at the conclusion of the trial and long before Hauptmann’s death contributed stories for pay to a New York newspaper, while the man’s fate was still undecided. They also were guests of honor on exhibition at the Flemington fair during 1935.¹⁵²⁵

As it concerned Hauptmann’s guilt, Walton had several reasons for believing Hauptmann and his wife were co-conspirators – one being that, prior to the trial, he learned “through the grapevine” that Hauptmann and his wife had been in

Manville, New Jersey, and had stopped “at a physician’s house” to ask the way to Hopewell. Besides this, he said, “If you could have seen all the evidence against Hauptmann, there was no doubt about his guilt.”¹⁵²

Walton also had strong opinions about Reilly. He believed the lead attorney unsuccessfully attempted to “confuse” and “fool” the jury.¹⁵²⁷ Walton disliked Reilly and blamed Reilly’s public comments about him and his fellow jurors for much of the hate mail they received. Reilly’s claims that Hauptmann was a scapegoat made no sense to Walton, who believed the NJSP could have much more easily scapegoated Violet Sharp, which they did not.¹⁵²⁸ So the notion of Hauptmann as a fall guy was “out.” According to Walton, the more that dishonest witnesses lied, and the more honest witnesses testified, the more the truth came out. As such, his decision on the verdict was based on “plainthinking,” and common sense.¹⁵²

Robert D. Levitt Interview: About 10 months after the trial, reporter Robert Levitt interviewed some of the jurors, including Walton, asking whether they’d oppose delaying the execution for the possibility of a confession or new evidence.

The evidence plainly proved his guilt and that proof can be contradicted only by evidence equally strong. Such new evidence has not, and I don’t think will, be brought forth. Of course what Governor Hoffman and the Court of Pardons may do is not my concern.¹⁵³

Kenneth Downs Interview: On several occasions, Governor Hoffman issued public statements which called into serious question the veracity of the testimony from John Condon, Charles Rossiter, Millard Whited, and Amandus Hochmuth.¹⁵³¹ Kenneth Downs, a reporter for the International News Service, wanted to know if the jurors would have changed their position if they knew these men had lied. This question was put to Walton, who said it wouldn’t have mattered, claiming “the ransom money and the handwriting alone were enough

to show Hauptmann was guilty.”¹⁵³²

Juror #2: Rosie Pill

Rosie Pill was a 58-year-old widow from Califon.¹⁵³³ She had grown children and was a Republican, considered by authorities to be a “gossiper” and possibly “easily led,” which caused them to rate her as only a “Fair Type of Juror” for the State.¹⁵³⁴

Almost a year after the trial, Pill claimed that “women” did not “jump to conclusions.”¹⁵³⁵

We saw the evidence, heard the testimony, deliberated, and made up our minds. We four women agreed on the verdict of guilty, and we knew that meant death for Hauptmann. And we didn’t hesitate.¹⁵³

She countered the idea that women were always “soft,” saying there was no time for “mawkish sympathy.” Quoted in The Newark Evening News, she said:

It was hard, of course, for women to have to do what we did. Especially at my age, it is a cruel thing to send a fellow mortal to his death. But it was the law, and it had to be. As a country girl I killed many a snake. And if you believe Bruno Hauptmann deserves any more consideration, you women who read this, you are wrong.¹⁵³⁷

Rosie Pill was the third of the Flemington jurors to away, dying on January

21, 1941, at the age of 65.¹⁵³⁸

Juror #3: Verna Snyder

Verna Snyder was a 36-year-old housewife from Centreville.¹⁵³ She was the mother of a six-year-old son, and while NJSP listed no political affiliation, they were concerned because her husband Fred, a blacksmith, had been arrested several times for “drunkenness.” It was for this reason they rated Vera Snyder as a “Fair Type of Juror.”¹⁵⁴ Police, however, eventually discovered something about her which they did like:

…it was learned that she was very provoked after received the pamphlet and was of the opinion that someone was trying to prejudice her opinion of the case.¹⁵⁴¹

This is especially interesting given how she testified when questioned about it by Fisher:

Q Did it influence you one way or the other the getting of it?

A I didn’t read it.

Q And it meant nothing to you one way or the other: is that right?

A Yes.

Q Did you express any opinion to anybody upon receipt of that:

A I just told them I received it.

Q But nothing as to how it affected you?

A No.

Q It didn’t affect you one way or the other, did it?

A No.¹⁵⁴²

Verna Snyder was the juror most visibly affected by the verdict. Even after the jury returned to the hotel, she sat for “two hours” and “wept nervously at times.”¹⁵⁴³ When interviewed, Verna mentioned the strict rule that the jury was not to speak to anyone or it would risk a mistrial. Everyone knew this, and yet outsiders were constantly trying to get the jurors to comment or answer questions as they arrived at and left court: “We got so that on the street we didn’t even dare talk to each other.”¹⁵⁴⁴

Because of her weight, Verna was a favorite of the press. She apparently “complained vigorously” on one occasion when “cigarettes were not” handed out to jurors after supper.¹⁵⁴⁵ It was also reported that she fell out of bed, creating a noise loud enough for Constable Pearl Conover to come running to assist in getting her off the floor – the culprit reported to have been a “mince pie” she ate

the night before.¹⁵⁴ One article presented juror Liscom Case’s “mild heart attack” as a mere afterthought to Snyder’s illness, which involved stomach pains. The article made sure to mention her “261 pounds,” which made her a “weighty problem.”

Mrs. Snyder has suffered from a cold since the trial began. Last night she ate a steak with a pile of mashed potatoes and noodles, two pieces of pie, three cups of coffee and fifteen rolls. Later she danced with the other jurors to the strains of “Casey Jones” on a phonograph. This morning she breakfasted in bed and complained of feeling unwell.¹⁵⁴⁷

These foibles may seem funny, but when one considers that many in Depressionera Hunterdon County, and throughout the country, didn’t have enough to eat, these articles were no joke. Stories like this caused many of the jurors to receive hate mail and death threats. The press also relayed that, despite the stifling heat in the courtroom, overcrowded to “suffocation,” Snyder always wore her “fullcollared coat,” so that on the day she took it off, it became a “topic of discussion” by everyone in attendance.¹⁵⁴⁸

Towards the end of the trial, it was reported that Verna Snyder had suffered a “case of the nerves” brought on by the “strain” and her “rigid confinement.”¹⁵⁴ She was both amused and agitated by the perfumed celebrities known as the “mink coat brigade,” who pushed their way through the courthouse “anxious to have Hauptmann found guilty.”¹⁵⁵ It was reported that those “mink coats” in the crowd loved it when various high-profile personalities testified. The crowd cheered and applauded when Lindbergh “scored a point” during his testimony and would repeat this “whenever a state witness gave a smart answer.”¹⁵⁵¹ And Lindbergh certainly scored his share of points. He “appeared to enjoy the mental clash” with Reilly, and his “eyes twinkled as he observed” the lawyer’s “discomfort” with his replies, as Lindbergh “turned innuendos” about his household employees “aside without a trace of anger or annoyance.”¹⁵⁵² But the mink-coat crowd’s fun ended as the experts made their way to the stand. They began to chit-chat among themselves, brought “books and magazines,” and “one

woman brought her knitting.”¹⁵⁵³

Verna Snyder believed the rest of the jury was unmoved by anything that occurred in or out of the courtroom and that “they” had decided to remain “undecided until everything was in.”¹⁵⁵⁴ She did make an important ission to reporter Jane Dixon, however, that certain phrases uttered by Attorney General Wilentz “kept ringing in her ears” such as:

“PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE OF THE WORLD.”

“THE LOWEST TYPE OF ANIMAL – WITHOUT HEART, WITHOUT SOUL.”¹⁵⁵⁵

During this interview, she explained that the State proved Hauptmann had written the ransom notes. Since one of the notes was left in the nursery, this led Snyder to believe Hauptmann “had been there.” Other factors included the “$400” radio Hauptmann purchased after the ransom had been paid, and the fact that Anna Hauptmann never saw the shoebox full of Lindbergh ransom money in her kitchen closet. If it had been there, Verna believed, Anna would have known about it.¹⁵⁵ The wood evidence and Hauptmann’s criminal record in also played a key part in her decision. The testimony of the Lindberghs and Mrs. Morrow carried “great weight” with Verna, and it “all came home” to her during Wilentz’s summation. She recalled that Wilentz had said it made “no difference whether he did the kidnapping alone or whether he had accomplices, as long as he took part in it, he’s guilty of the crime.”¹⁵⁵⁷

Kenneth Downs Interview: Verna believed that if there was proof that a State witness lied, Hauptmann’s sentence should be “life imprisonment instead of the electric chair.”¹⁵⁵⁸ Snyder also itted to Downs that she had in fact been “one of the jurors to hold out to the end for life.” She claimed the reason that she

finally gave in was that Hauptmann “might get out some day if he got life.”¹⁵⁵ Another interesting point in this interview was Downs’s assertion that he learned “almost every one of the jurors believe Hauptmann had an accomplice in this crime.” This included Verna, who said she had a suspect but would not reveal who it was.¹⁵

Juror #4: Charles F. Snyder

Charles Snyder was a 40-year-old farmer from Clinton Township.¹⁵ ¹ He was a ed Republican, married, with children. Police liked that he had served on the “Conde murder ” in 1921 and considered him a “Good Type of Juror” for the State.¹⁵ ²

The jurors were afraid of a mistrial. Both Judge Trenchard and the prosecution repeatedly warned them to follow to all instructions to avoid this. With this in mind, “two” of the Jurors believed Reilly was purposely attempting to cause a mistrial.¹⁵ ³ Snyder believed that Mrs. Hauptmann had perjured herself to protect her husband. His position was “that a husband and wife discuss all the big things in life.”¹⁵ ⁴ Snyder was especially iring of John Condon. He believed Condon’s eccentricities could be explained by “the effects of a long, busy life.”¹⁵ ⁵ He claimed Condon’s testimony – that he could “identify” a man by “voice,” “mannerisms,” and “looks” – made a “tremendous impression” when he pointed out Hauptmann.¹⁵ Furthermore, Snyder said Condon’s “sincerity” is what “impressed” the jury and that his testimony held great “influence” on them.¹⁵ ⁷ Snyder also claimed the jurors were impressed with Perrone, Gow, Koehler, and all of the State’s handwriting experts.¹⁵ ⁸ He explained that “if the defense did not shake” a witness, it made their testimony double in “value.”¹⁵ He said that since Hochmuth had seen so few cars by his home, the jury believed “he knew what he was talking about.”¹⁵⁷ He also added that sometimes the defense “developed more facts against” Hauptmann than the State did, and that, overall, their witnesses were very “weak.”¹⁵⁷¹

Juror #5: Ethel Stockton

Ethel Stockton, 32, was employed as a stenographer for former prosecutor Johnson V. Aller. Married with one child, she lived in Pattenburg and was rated as a “Good Type of Juror” for the State.¹⁵⁷²

Stockton viewed Anne Lindbergh’s testimony as simple, sharp memories, all of which were believable and real. She contrasted her testimony with Anna Hauptmann’s, calling the latter’s full of “gaps,” “holes,” and not very believable.¹⁵⁷³ Stockton couldn’t accept that Anna “lacked curiosity” or that a wife wouldn’t question her husband about money and purchases.¹⁵⁷⁴ As to the “Fisch Story,” Stockton did not believe a box could remain on a shelf unopened for as long as it did. She also contrasted both Elsie Whateley and Gerta Henkel. Mrs. Whateley had to clear her husband’s name against certain accusations, and Elsie impressed Stockton as someone who couldn’t be fooled, which convinced her there was nothing to the allegations concerning Olly Whateley and Violet Sharp. Stockton noted that Henkel was “vivacious,” the “life of the trial and the crowd ate her up.” She took exception to the “way she swished to the witness stand” and “bounced off it” back to her seat. Stockton thought, “She can talk until she’s blue in the face, but it won’t change my mind.”¹⁵⁷⁵ She ired Betty Gow and believed her. Part of this was due to her mistaken belief that Gow “had been raked and cross-raked, questioned and examined and re-examined by whole squads of police.”¹⁵⁷

In a later interview, Stockton described the handwriting experts as having impressed the jury “the most.”

The jurors had with them Hauptmann’s own notebooks, and there made comparison of their own and detected resemblances that the experts overlooked or failed to bring into evidence.¹⁵⁷⁷

She added that the jury all voted “as one” for the death penalty: “Never once during the trial had they a doubt about his guilt.”¹⁵⁷⁸

Juror #6: Elmer Smith

Elmer Smith was former justice of the peace from Lambertville.¹⁵⁷ His age is listed among several different sources as being between 35 and 48. He was married with one child, the NJSP noted that he had “always used good judgement, always fair in decisions,” concluding that he would make a “very Good Juror.”¹⁵⁸

Smith’s wife was a big fan of Hollywood and he was able to successfully identify to the other jurors the movie stars who appeared in court. Ginger Rogers was the easiest to spot since she “always dressed in red.” When testimony was dry, as when the handwriting experts were on the stand, jurors would glance around the courtroom to see who was present.¹⁵⁸¹ Smith did not view Lindbergh’s presence as a “plea for revenge” against Hauptmann, as he would later read in the papers,¹⁵⁸² but he did think Lindbergh was convinced of Hauptmann’s guilt, and that he “identified the voice with great deliberateness,” believing Lindbergh could that voice despite hearing it at St.Raymond’s Cemetery nearly three years prior.

During the deliberations it came out that every one of the jurors had graded Colonel Lindbergh’s identification as I had – a possibility, to be considered in the light of other testimony.¹⁵⁸³

About four weeks after the trial, Elmer Smith wrote to Wilentz complaining that the jury had been “unofficially” told they’d receive $6 a day but that recent inquiries met with varied responses. Smith protested that $3 a day was not “fair”

since many were earning more than that before being called.¹⁵⁸⁴ It is interesting to note that The Washington Post reported on February 15 that the jurors had already each been paid “$126” from “Sheriff Curtiss” before returning home.¹⁵⁸⁵ About a month later, Smith was interviewed and asked about Judge Trenchard’s charge. He said Trenchard had been on the State Supreme Court “for twentyeight years” but “never had a reversal,” so it seemed to him that “he was well qualified” to “charge a jury.”¹⁵⁸

Kenneth Downs Interview: Once faced with the possibility that state witnesses had lied, Elmer Smith responded:

If they prove perjury against only a single state witness that would not be enough to affect the case. If they showed that several of the identification witnesses were not testifying truthfully maybe Hauptmann should be given a new trial – I would not commit myself definitely on that without a lot of thought.¹⁵⁸⁷

Juror #7: Robert Cravatt

Robert Cravatt was from High Bridge, single, “about 28” years old, and employed at a “CCC Camp.”¹⁵⁸⁸ He was a ed Republican and was considered a “Good Type of Juror” for the State.¹⁵⁸ Upon being selected as a juror it was noticed that Cravatt was “scowling,” apparently “depressed” by this.¹⁵

He was quoted in The Newark Evening News as saying: “from the time Justice Trenchard pronounced us a jury until after the verdict was read we were twelve prisoners.”¹⁵ ¹ The only way they managed was with “humor” and by letting go the day’s events at the end of each session. ¹⁵ ² Cravatt also said that during the entire ordeal there were “never any signs of friction” among the jurors.¹⁵ ³

Cravatt told George Hawke in a 1951 interview that, after the trial, he was “constantly hounded and misquoted.”¹⁵ ⁴ Cravatt also said he was pressed by one reporter for his of what occurred during the deliberations, and when Cravatt refused, the reporter became verbally abusive. Cravatt claimed he then “knocked him down a flight of stairs.”¹⁵ ⁵

Cravatt also recalled seeing Reilly hurrying up the steps of the Union Hotel one night, anxious to get to an interview, when he suddenly “bellowed” out, “Hell, what’s the use? He’s guilty!”¹⁵

Despite his own belief that Hauptmann was guilty, Cravatt did not believe the Lindbergh kidnapping was a lone-wolf crime.¹⁵ ⁷ On the one-month anniversary of the verdict, the jurors held a “reunion” at the Union Hotel. Cravatt was the only member who did not attend.¹⁵ ⁸

Juror #8: Philip Hockenbury

Philip Hockenbury, 60s, had several adult children and lived in Annandale with his wife. According to the NJSP, he was a Democrat and employed as a railroad laborer. Police rated him a “Good Type Juror” for the State.¹⁵ One newspaper reported that Hockenbury became “bored” at times during the trial and “had a hard time keeping awake.” The article claimed that he would “doze off” several times and be “awakened with a start.”¹

Hockenbury claimed Hauptmann’s “manner” was the worst evidence against him. His “brazen” attitude on the stand, where he ignored the facts and instead was “bold,” “defiant,” “loud” and attempted to “shout” down Wilentz made him

look guilty to Hockenbury.¹ ¹ Hauptmann’s stories “didn’t fit” and his “denials” were not believable, but the “local witnesses” who saw him in Hopewell were.¹ ² To Hockenbury, both Hauptmann and his wife were “trying to make up situations, by speech and actions, for which there was no excuse or reason.”¹ ³ He saw Hauptmann as “cool,” “composed,” and “self-controlled,” so when he jumped up and screamed “liar” at a witness, Hockenbury did not find this outburst “necessary or genuine.” When Anna did the same, Hockenbury believed it had been a coordinated effort to impress the jury, and Hockenbury did not believe an innocent man would put on such an act.¹ ⁴ He believed Hauptmann’s testimony was rehearsed and that he did not seem “genuine,”¹ ⁵ nor did he think Fisch was involved because “a real friend would have fought” that accusation against him and would have “protected” Fisch instead attempting to “dump a whole load of suspicion” onto a dead man.¹ In Hockenbury’s view, it “was plain to see” that both “prosecution and defense” believed Anna Hauptmann knew nothing about either the kidnapping or murder of the Lindbergh child.¹ ⁷

Robert D. Levitt Interview: Hockenbury kept his reply to Levitt short and to the point: “the man is as guilty today as he was a year ago.”

I said then that he should go to the chair, and I say the same today. No one has done or said anything to make me change my opinion.¹ ⁸

Kenneth Downs Interview: Hockenbury was similarly blunt when he spoke to Downs: “That fellow was absolutely guilty. I ain’t changed my mind one bit.”¹

He was the second juror to die, a May 8, 1936 obituary stating that Hockenbury, aged 66, was a “trackwalker” and “stepped from behind one train into the path of another.”¹ ¹ Governor Hoffman received an anonymous letter which concerned Hockenbury, the author claiming he was his former neighbor:

As told me several weeks before his accidental death that, to quote him accurately, “Sometimes I wonder if we could have made a mistake” and then this, I quote, “He wasn’t alone in it there was others.”¹ ¹¹

The letter also claimed that this was shared with Fred Pope, who replied:

Then why didn’t they bring in a true verdict and recommend clemency netting life instead of the chair?¹ ¹²

Juror #9: George Voorhees

George Voorhees was 45, married and farmer from Clinton Township with grown children.¹ ¹³ He was listed by the State Police as a Democrat who “should make a Good Type of Juror.”¹ ¹⁴

According to Voorhees, Reilly attempted to “break up the trial” but Judge Trenchard was a “rock” and wouldn’t allow it.¹ ¹⁵ For Voorhees, Trenchard was also remarkable in how he navigated his way through the “maze” and “mess” coming from the defense. However, Voorhees also believed “Hauptmann got all the breaks” as far as Judge Trenchard was concerned.¹ ¹ Voorhees disliked Reilly who he believed was a “bluff” all “dressed up like a clothing model,” who, on many occasions, the “fair but firm” Judge Trenchard had to “call him down.”¹ ¹⁷ Voorhees said the defense witnesses did not really testify because Reilly did “most their talking for them.” He believed Wilentz was “masterful” and his presentation proved that Hauptmann wasn’t a “goat.”¹ ¹⁸

Vorhees claimed that after the trial reporters followed him around his farm asking questions he refused to answer until the newsmen quietly gave up.¹ ¹

However, there were several United Press stories following the trial which directly quoted Voorhees, so by the time of his interview with George Hawke, he either mised or misrepresented what had really occurred. Vorhees told reporters that during each of the five ballots his was always murder without mercy.¹ ² He claimed that a large amount of evidence had, at times, been disregarded by the jury as “irrelevant” and even “suspected perjury.”¹ ²¹ Voorhees thought that although Anna Hauptmann had knowledge of her husband’s involvement, this was indeed a lone-wolf crime.¹ ²² He dismissed the testimony of both Whited and Hochmuth, believing they were merely “publicity seekers” and that it was “impossible” for them to have ed what they claimed.¹ ²³ Voorhees said the jury had reached a decision about Hauptmann’s guilt several days before the end of the trial. For Voorhees, neither Wilentz’s summation nor Trenchard’s charge mattered:

The lawyers were playing a game. Furthermore, the jury was so mad that what he said in a derogatory sense didn’t hit home. As for the charge, we didn’t believe any of the defense anyway because their witnesses were so poor.¹ ²⁴

Robert D. Levitt Interview: When Vorhees was asked if he would oppose delaying Hauptmann’s execution for the possibility of a confession or new evidence he replied:

My opinion now is just the same as it was when I came out of the jury’s deliberations. Bruno Hauptmann should die.¹ ²⁵

He added that the men who testified about the ladder and handwriting were of the elite: “If you can’t trust them, I’d like to know who we can trust.”¹ ²

Juror #10: May F. Brelsford

May Brelsford was in her late 40s, from Flemington, and married with two children. Police listed her as a Republican but rated her only as a “Fair Juror” because her husband had been arrested.¹ ²⁷ Brelsford went to high school with Lloyd Fisher, and was the one juror he later named as someone who “conducted herself with great dignity throughout the affair.”¹ ²⁸

Brelsford commented on the “stale air” and the courtroom being “hot and stuffy.” She claimed the press’s reaction to certain testimony let her know “something important” was “being said” and that it “acted like exclamation points punctuating the testimony.”¹ ² This point was observed by many in the courtroom, who also noticed that when “the State scored heavily” there were loud shuffling of papers and the “rush of messenger boys for doors.”¹ ³ Brelsford claimed much of the testimony became “blurred” but that “sudden stirs” from the courtroom hit her like “punches.”¹ ³¹ However, she claimed the jury was “disgusted” with the press’s “conduct in the courtroom.”¹ ³² According to Brelsford, the jury was also suspicious of Anna Hauptmann’s testimony and Hauptmann’s demeanor did not help:

His adamant face, his stiff carriage, and his war record in World War I, all went a long way toward making some jurors feel that he was the typical, German war product.¹ ³³

She claimed that after the trial she “laughed” upon reading back copies of newspapers, where some were supposedly reading her face, with one claiming she was holding back “sympathy for Mrs. Hauptmann.”¹ ³⁴ In fact, Brelsford said she was in awe of Anna Hauptmann, wondering how she could remain “expressionless” as the facts piled up against her husband.

None of us made up our minds to anything until all of the evidence had been presented. I never once considered the case as a whole until after Justice

Trenchard had made his charge.¹ ³⁵

During her interview with Hawke, Brelsford referred to evidence she had been aware of, but “which the State did not use.”¹ ³ However, she completely rejected Whited’s testimony. She knew that he had earned his bad reputation.¹ ³⁷ After the trial, she was quoted as saying: “It was terrible. You can’t know how bad it was. I want to forget it.”¹ ³⁸

Kenneth Downs Interview: Brelsford was approached by Downs but “declined” to comment.¹ ³ This was not unusual. John Robertson, a still photographer for The Newark Sunday Call, approached her in Flemington, attempting to get a picture of her and a couple words about the trial. She “refused,” became “very nasty” and told him “to get out of the place.”¹ ⁴ Brelsford became famous for her resistance to interviews. With this in mind, any source, like Hawke, where she did speak to someone, is quite valuable.

Juror #11: Liscom C. Case

Liscom Case was a widower with no children, from Pittstown. He was a railroad carpenter who, police wrote, was “closed mouthed,” “not easily led” and a “Very Good Type of Juror.”¹ ⁴¹ Lloyd Fisher wrote that he selected Case specifically because he was a carpenter and believed “he would be able to see through the phoney testimony about the ladder and Hauptmann’s attic.”¹ ⁴²

The most serious threat of a mistrial came from Liscom Case’s health. At the end of one session, he was in such a poor state there was concern he would not be able to continue. Newspaper reports carried “rumors that he was near collapse.”¹ ⁴³ However, he received medical care and rest, and was able to somehow carry on to the end of the trial.¹ ⁴⁴ Fellow juror George Vorhees

revealed to reporters after the trial that Case was “in a more serious condition” than anyone knew and that the entire jury was “on edge” thinking he might have a heart attack at any time.¹ ⁴⁵ Case had to be assisted in walking to and from court as well as up and down the steps of the Union Hotel to his room. Because Case was a carpenter, he took special interest in the wood evidence. He believed Koehler over DeBisschop, and believed rail 16 came from Hauptmann’s attic. Additionally, Case was impressed with the handwriting experts and believed Hauptmann wrote all the ransom notes. He trusted Condon’s identification of Hauptmann and believed the “man who got the ransom” “must have known exactly where the baby was.”¹ ⁴

Case, 65, was the first of the jurors to die, on December 29, 1935, from a “chronic heart ailment.”¹ ⁴⁷

Liscom Case (center with hat pulled down) being escorted and assisted by two Constables from the courthouse to the Union Hotel. (Author’s Collection)

Juror #12: Howard V. Biggs

Howard Biggs, unemployed, was from Annandale, married, with children, and about 50 years old. Police listed him as a Democrat and someone who would make a “Good Type of Juror” for the State.¹ ⁴⁸

According Biggs, the jury was deeply impressed with some of the case’s principal figures, such as “Colonel Lindbergh,” and “people like that.”¹ ⁴ In George Hawke’s thesis, he complemented his sentiments with this:

The alien Hauptmann, with few friends and less financial resources, was challenged by one of the first families of the United States combined with an assortment of Colonels, Captains, and Lieutenants. The fact that the AttorneyGeneral asked various celebrities and high ranking people ing the State to stand up dramatically and face the jury during his summation was not lost upon the jury, nor anyone else.¹ ⁵

Biggs was also quoted after the trial as saying that when the Morrows or Lindberghs testified, the jury “had to believe them” because they were “highly respected” people who one “knew” were trustworthy. Furthermore, Biggs believed that Lindbergh had “no reason to identify Hauptmann unless he was sure he was right.”¹ ⁵¹ It was for this reason Lindbergh was “never doubted.”¹ ⁵²

This position ed Lloyd Fisher’s assertion about the jury:

They also were unquestionably influenced by the testimony of Col. Lindbergh and their proximity to him daily during the day in court room and by other things which ought not to enter into their deliberation.¹ ⁵³

Biggs also claimed the jury “might have” completely disregarded Condon’s testimony if not for Lindbergh’s complete confidence in him: “Colonel Lindbergh trusted Jafsie and if he did I don’t see why we couldn’t.”¹ ⁵⁴ (Had the jury known Lieutenant Keaten and Inspector Walsh did not trust Condon, or that Lindbergh told Special Agent Hugh Larimer that he doubted “Condon’s sincerity,” and also told Former Assistant United States Attorney Dan Cowie that he had “absolutely no confidence” in Condon – one has to wonder if any of this might have changed Biggs’s mind.¹ ⁵⁵, ¹ ⁵ )

For Biggs, another nail in Hauptmann’s coffin was the $400.00 radio he purchased after the kidnapping. Biggs believed this was a highly unusual purchase for a man as “tight” with money as Hauptmann.¹ ⁵⁷ Biggs made an important point during deliberations, regarding Hauptmann’s tools. Concerning the Bucks Brothers chisel found at Highfields and the Bucks Brothers chisel among Hauptmann’s belongings, Biggs felt they had been “sharpened in the same manner.” Furthermore, he also claimed “the plane bits” had been sharpened in the “same manner.”¹ ⁵⁸ (We know from earlier s and examinations by others, including Koehler, that this is not true, but it is clear that Biggs believed it was.) Biggs was also frustrated by the lack of social interaction:

We were able to talk to no one but each other and the constables. After more than a month of being cooped up, we began to feel like prisoners ourselves.¹ ⁵

Robert D. Levitt Interview: When Biggs was asked whether he’d oppose delaying the execution for the possibility of a confession or new evidence he replied:

I honestly feel, as I felt in the jury room, that Hauptmann should die, but can’t see what difference it makes whether he dies next month or next year for the atrocious crime which he committed.¹

Ed Reilly

According to Governor Hoffman, Ed Reilly was known as “Death House Reilly” for his “lack of success in capital cases.”¹ ¹ One of Reilly’s earliest tactical efforts was to bring little Manfred Hauptmann into court with his mother Anna, but this idea was quashed by Judge Trenchard.¹ ² Manfred had been a crowd favorite, the mob surging toward Mrs. Hauptmann to get a glimpse of the “pleasant-faced, chubby baby,” seemingly surprised that he wasn’t “some sort of monster.”¹ ³

As it concerned Reilly’s demeanor, Ellis Parker wrote:

Some newspaper men told me that during the trial at Flemington, that Reilly was drunk all the time, was doing a tap dance in the street, raising the flag up and down, and making speeches in front of the hotel where the jury could look out and see him…¹ ⁴

As previously shown, the jury’s opinion of Reilly was extremely unfavorable. They found him “contemptuous,” “overbearing,” and constantly “talking down” to them.¹ ⁵ His florid “cutaway coat,” “pin-striped pants,” and the “flower” in

his lapel also antagonized the jury. Several newspaper articles quoted Reilly as disparaging the jurors by saying “a Metropolitan jury would not return such a verdict because they could reason on the facts better.”¹ Jurors were also fully aware of his level of “intoxication in the courtroom,” their opinions reinforced by his “antics” outside the courtroom.¹ ⁷ They routinely saw him with a “woman on each arm,” and heard him dancing and singing “Ring Around the Rosie” one night in the snow-covered street.¹ ⁸ According to Lloyd Fisher:

It is true Mr. Reilly lived with a respectable family named Hawke but he came damned near making a disorderly house out of the place before he got out. He was drunk almost nightly. He had down here with him two alleged secretaries and I don’t think either one of them knew a typewriter from a drinking fountain. Noons he would go into the dining room at the hotel and have liquor served in a tea cup and everyone in the place would know what he was drinking. It was impossible to get the man to confer with any of the rest of counsel because he spent all his time chasing around with women who wanted to get into the courthouse and with newspaper men.¹

There was no doubt Reilly’s drinking affected him during the trial, many jurors believing he was “slightly addicted to the bottle.” While their judgement concerning the level intoxication in the courtroom varied, they all noticed that Reilly was “suffering from the effects of the night before,” but that after lunch he “evidently” consumed a few “orange blossoms to guild the lily,” so that while he was “slow in the mornings,” just after lunch “he seemed to pick up a bit.”¹ ⁷ Another rumor was that Reilly’s activities concerning women was not without consequence. This seems to have been confirmed by Damon Runyon, who, while observing Reilly’s conduct in the men’s room, concluded he had “a roaring case of venereal disease.”¹ ⁷¹

Reilly was paid by the Hearst Syndicate to defend Hauptmann while also collecting money from the press for nearly every interview he gave.¹ ⁷² A couple days before the verdict, he posed for pictures, about to give two separate preparatory statements for the verdict – one for guilty, the other for acquittal.

Just before the cameras rolled, Reilly stopped and asked for “seventy-five dollars,” which he was promised. He was paid and the “recordings took place.”¹ ⁷³ of the press “almost unanimously” agreed that Hauptmann was “not getting as good a defense” as he was “entitled to,” placing the blame for this squarely on Reilly’s “clown tactics” both in and out of the courtroom.¹ ⁷⁴ Lloyd Fisher claimed that during the trial Reilly was effusive and “deferential to the Attorney General.” This “obsequious” behavior, he believed, “gave the jury the idea that he was afraid” and that Reilly’s friendliness toward Wilentz, to the point of “palship,” gave jurors the impression that Reilly was “really against his client instead of for him.”¹ ⁷⁵ Fisher also said Reilly appeared “awestruck” when questioning Lindbergh, which caused him to be ineffective in his crossexamination.¹ ⁷

Hauptmann was not without his complaints either. He requested that Pope and Fisher “take part in the Summation but Reilly refused.”¹ ⁷⁷ Hauptmann was also upset at Reilly’s use of certain witnesses, particularly Philip Moses to whom Hauptmann referred as a “monkey shine.”¹ ⁷⁸

Edward Reilly outside Flemington Courthouse (1935) (Author’s Collection)

Deliberations/Ballots

On entering the 20-by-40 foot jury room, Charles Walton and others searched for hidden microphones. There were two tables, one for the jury, the other for exhibits. There had been multiple attempts made to eavesdrop, which included reporters peeking through the “keyhole,” and even “an inquisitive constable” who had to be “evicted” … “to the consternation of the reporters crouched around the door.”¹ ⁷ For obvious reasons, this should not have occurred, even more so because Trooper Genz was posted at the “back entrance to the jury room” with specific orders to “see that no one without authority came within a reasonable distance” of that room.¹ ⁸ With this in mind, it is reasonable to believe a similar situation existed everywhere as well, therefore reporters should not have been able to “crouch” anywhere near a jury room door. If they were, as Walton asserted, its further evidence of bribery.

Revealed among the many interviews with the jurors was the agreement amongst themselves to never reveal what was said during the deliberations,¹ ⁸¹ so it is questionable what s can be believed. A denial of something true might be expected, and an ission of something else could be an effort at misdirection. However, since we already know that at least one member had sold out to the press for money, there is no doubt that what occurred in the jury room was already known to some. But the fact is that at least one of their own had betrayed this vow, which may never have been known to the rest. I’ve also found that with every interview with a juror, something new was revealed and, as time wore on, it seems they became less guarded and more apt to reveal information. As seen earlier, some of this information conflicted with what another juror may have revealed. Sometimes, even the same juror said something that contradicted

something previously attributed to them. One detail revealed by Charles Snyder was that the jury “took a vote five minutes after they entered the jury room,” with most their remaining time spent deliberating between life or death.¹ ⁸² But Howard Biggs gave a complete different , claiming the jury agreed not to be “hasty” and immediately began looking at exhibits.¹ ⁸³ Biggs claimed they called for a magnifying glass and that all exhibits were examined closely. Sandwiches were served between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM, and as they ate, the jurors realized there was no use in further deliberations. Biggs claimed “twelve ballots are ed and twelve are cast; one vote. GUILTY of murder in the first degree.”¹ ⁸⁴ Of course, this is completely opposite to George Vorhees’s, who claimed the jurors all concluded Hauptmann was guilty before the trial was even over. Vorhees also said, perhaps unwittingly, that “five ballots” had been cast by the jurors during deliberations and that two women and one man had been the holdouts for mercy:

It was my observation from our conversation during the trial that the verdict would be guilty. The big problem was in appraising justice.¹ ⁸⁵

Their reasoning for this, claimed Vorhees, was the belief among the jurors that Hauptmann had accomplices and were afraid his death would allow them to evade justice. But by the fifth vote, they all agreed.¹ ⁸

According to Captain Snook:

There seems to have been little question in the minds of the jury as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The only question was whether or not he should be given the death sentence or life imprisonment. On the first ballot, (the exact number of ballots I do not know) three held out for life imprisonment. One report states that they were Rosie Pill, No. 2; Robert Cravatt No. 7; and Howard Biggs No. 12.¹ ⁸⁷

There were countless newspaper stories on the deliberations. Most contained very similar s. One claimed there had been “half a dozen” ballots taken and that Pill, Verna Snyder, Hockenbury, Smith, and Cravatt had originally voted for life.¹ ⁸⁸ It went on to say that the women were the first to switch, followed by Hockenbury, then Smith, before Cravatt finally changed his vote.¹ ⁸ The most widely circulated reports claimed there were “five ballots” and that Pill, Snyder, and Cravatt were the original holdouts for life, with Cravatt being the last until switching on the final ballot.¹ Supposedly, Cravatt’s argument was that “something” might eventually turn up which could exonerate Hauptmann and cause them to “all be sorry.”¹ ¹ During an interview, crime reporter Adrian Lopez asked Elmer Smith if it was true that Cravatt and “all the women” voted for life imprisonment on the first ballot. Smith said the story was “ridiculous” and “no such thing happened in the jury room.”¹ ²

Snook claimed that “everyone” was concerned about the “possibility of leaks” when the jury began deliberations. Their room had been “carefully inspected” and “every precaution was taken to avoid the newspapers from getting advance information,” but Snook wrote that “the bet had gone the rounds the night before that the newspapers would have the verdict before the judge received it.”¹ ³

One of our men caught a newspaper reporter with a transmitter in the courtroom when the jury returned. All kinds of schemes had been concocted by the newspaper reporters to get the flash out as soon as possible and thus make the scoop.¹ ⁴

In the deliberation room, the jury had all the State exhibits arranged on the table for their consideration, Charles Snyder telling George Hawke:

One notebook crept in for their surveillance which was hardly issible, however, though not introduced and itted as evidence in the course of the trial, a notebook containing drawings and plans of the Lindbergh home and purportedly belonging to Hauptmann was present for their perusal.¹ ⁵

Captain Snook oversaw setting up the exhibits in the jury room:

During this time I was a busy man but not busy in the court-room. With a detail of several men I arranged our exhibits in the jury-room – and what a display! You can well imagine the prominence which I gave to the handwriting exhibits and particularly to the one to which Hauptmann signed his name.¹

The jury was impressed by the expert testimony. They believed Koehler had traced rail 16 to Hauptmann’s attic and that Osborn proved Hauptmann had written the ransom notes. They were impressed by the number of handwriting experts on the State’s side.¹ ⁷ In fact, Captain Snook heard…

Through the confidential source that there was a great deal of discussion and that the handwriting was carefully examined and considered and when I returned to the jury-room to secure the exhibits I found that all of the questioned documents had been handled.¹ ⁸

Most were just as impressed by the testimony of the “government ant,” who showed how all the ransom money figured into Hauptmann’s finances. Other damning evidence included “Condon’s address in Hauptmann’s closet” and the actual possession of the “$14,600” ransom bills. Finally, there was “no disputing the effect of Charles Lindbergh’s voice identification.”¹

Once the verdict had been decided, the jury burned all their ballots, leaving nothing behind but a pile of ashes for reporters, who immediately filled the room to sift through them.¹⁷

Decades Later

I have discovered some interviews decades after the trial in which jurors seemed more willing to violate their “pact” to keep their deliberations secret – somewhat. Foreman Charles Walton was interviewed by Liz Fuerst of The Hunterdon County Democrat in 1976, revealing for the first time that “all but one of the jurors were convinced the defendant was guilty the minute the jury filed out to deliberate.”¹⁷ ¹ Walton went on to say that this “hold-out” was afraid of “reprisals” and had to be “convinced” of Hauptmann’s guilt. Afterwards, Walton said the remainder of their time was spent “deciding on a second or first degree murder conviction.”¹⁷ ² Walton also relayed the stories about the jury’s hidden microphone concerns and burning the ballots before leaving the jury room.

In 1989, Ethel Stockton was living in Orlando, Florida. In an interview for the Orlando Sentinel, Stockton stated her belief that there still “wasn’t even a shadow of a doubt” that Hauptmann was guilty.¹⁷ ³ She recounted how impressed she’d been with the handwriting testimony, Koehler’s wood testimony, and John Condon’s identification of Hauptmann. Her recollections of the deliberations backed up Walton’s claim 13 years prior: “On the first two votes, there was one who voted not guilty. On the third vote, it was unanimous.”¹⁷ ⁴ Of course, this does directly contradict her earlier statements on the subject, made in 1944. Stockton gave one of her last interviews in 1999, but had since suffered a stroke and, having lost most of her memory, by this time was unaware that she had ever been interviewed about the trial.¹⁷ ⁵

Sheriff Curtiss

Curtiss generated suspicion and hard feelings among news outlets almost immediately. Word spread that he was going to turn his office over to the Associated Press. This created an immediate uproar from the AP’s counterparts,

who protested this represented an unfair “outstanding advantage” over the other news agencies.¹⁷ Due to this “squawking,” Curtiss also allowed the International News Service to use his office.¹⁷ ⁷ Another of Curtiss’s scams involved charging reporters “$5 and $10” for their seats in the courtroom.¹⁷ ⁸ Most paid and simply added it to their expense s.¹⁷ However, one man from the World Telegram balked and called his editor who, in turn, told him to write a story about the sheriff’s “fee-fixing.”¹⁷¹ The Board of Freeholders took notice and an investigation ensued, Curtiss claiming the money was merely a “voluntary” contribution. Governor Moore ordered Curtiss to “refund” all fees he had collected.¹⁷¹¹ But Curtiss was not about to let this scheme die and brought in a third person “connected with a telegraph company,” to sell the tickets for “$10, $5, a pint of good bonded rye, or a box of cigars.”¹⁷¹² The World Telegram was offered “free seats” and so let the matter drop.¹⁷¹³ Of course, as stated earlier, this was only part of the reason the courtroom was so overcrowded. As Lloyd Fisher described the scene:

They were packed ten deep along the walls and aisles [and] they packed the enclosures set aside for of the Bar.¹⁷¹⁴

He also added that people were “jammed in so closely that it was impossible to talk between counsel at the table, or to even write notes, without someone hearing or seeing what was done.”¹⁷¹⁵ According to others, not only were people occupying seats and standing in aisles, but also sitting on radiators and shoved in the windowsills, the main cause for the sound of glass shattering heard throughout the proceedings.¹⁷¹ One female spectator was caught in the commotion during a recess, pushed against a window causing it to smash, and nearly falling through.¹⁷¹⁷ There was no word if falling glass caused any injuries to those outside, but according to Governor Hoffman, four windows were broken, with upwards of 800 people packed into a courtroom designed for 250.¹⁷¹⁸ Journalist James Kilgallen, tired of the blame being assigned to the press, claimed that “the judge, the lawyers, and the police – not the press – were responsible for the congested condition of the courtroom,”¹⁷¹ while another reporter, Sidney Whipple, described the courtroom as “jammed,” “suffocating,” “stifling and unhealthy.”¹⁷² Whipple also said that the press, obviously realizing the possibilities afforded by a sheriff looking to make some extra money, made

every effort imaginable to take advantage. They sought “special privileges” from Curtiss such as “seating arrangements,” sneaking in forbidden equipment, extra tickets, and permission “of photographing Hauptmann in his cell.”¹⁷²¹

Ironically, about a week before the trial ended, newspapers were carrying articles that Sheriff Curtiss was taking every measure to prevent a leak from the jury room during their deliberations. One report claimed that Curtiss was taking “no chances” by ensuring that no “secret sensitive sound transmitters” were planted in the jury room.¹⁷²² Curtiss was quoted as having told his aides, “I want to be absolutely sure that no one will have even the slightest idea of what is going on. Their deliberations must be kept secret.”¹⁷²³ Another strategy employed, at the direction of Curtiss, was that “all doors” would “be guarded.”¹⁷²⁴

Even after the trial, Sheriff Curtiss was still trying to make money by abusing the powers of his office. The day after the verdict, Curtiss told Hauptmann that “a friend of his” was going to come in and take pictures of him in his cell. Hauptmann flatly refused.¹⁷²⁵ According to Anna Hauptmann:

Sheriff Curtis told Richard if he did not permit the taking the picture behind bars, that he, Curtiss would not permit me to visit Richard. Rather than miss seeing me Richard was forced to consent to the degradation of a picture in his cell.¹⁷²

Curtiss died on June 5, 1940, after suffering from a “heart ailment” for the previous two years.¹⁷²⁷

Sheriff John Curtiss (NJSP)

Hauptmann’s Reaction

Hauptmann returned to the courtroom at about 10:20 PM, handcuffed to Lieutenant Smith and Deputy Low.¹⁷²⁸ Anna walked up the aisle, took her seat, and gave a quick smile to her husband. By all s, her face was completely drained of color. Fisher whispered to Anna not to say a word. Whatever the sentence was, he did not want her crying out or making a scene. She “nodded.”¹⁷² Fisher then turned his attention to Hauptmann and strongly urged him to do the same. Hauptmann “nodded and stiffened in his chair.”¹⁷³ As the jury entered, it was clear to everyone what their verdict would be. According to Anna, “no single member of the jury looked toward Richard or me.” All looked away from them, with “nothing there to give any encouragement,” especially when she saw Foreman Charles Walton “shaking like a leaf”.¹⁷³¹ Hauptmann stood ramrod-straight for the reading of the verdict and showed no emotion. Upon hearing the verdict, he looked to his wife, “closed his eyes, and slowing shook his head.”¹⁷³² Before he was led away, several claimed Hauptmann said to her “it’s all right, Annie.”¹⁷³³

As her husband was ushered out of the courtroom, tears were streaming down Anna’s face. She dried her eyes then pushed her way through the crowd and out a backdoor of the courthouse.¹⁷³⁴ Fisher remained seated at the table “plainly distressed” before he “eventually broke down and wept.”¹⁷³⁵

Hauptmann was returned to his cell after the verdict:

He did not collapse, but was very badly shaken, and cried practically all night, with no sleep.¹⁷³

Having been handcuffed to Hauptmann during the entire trial, it was hard for Deputy Low not to be negatively impacted. In fact, several reporters who searched Hauptmann’s face for a reaction noticed instead that the verdict “visibly” impacted Low.¹⁷³⁷ He later told reporters “it seemed that part of that sentence rested upon me.”¹⁷³⁸ Low added that once Hauptmann was back in his cell, he began to “cry” and was “shocked and stunned and broken.”¹⁷³

The next day, Hauptmann was still very much “despondent,” “ate no full meals,” and “paced up and down his cell with tears in his eyes.”¹⁷⁴ Hauptmann received a visit from Fisher, Rosencrans, and Reilly around noon. Anna came to visit him after 2:00 PM and left around 2:30. According to Lieutenant Smith, who was guarding Hauptmann at the time:

Immediately after the interview with his wife, attorney Reilly made a final effort to have this man confess, and upon being unsuccessful left for New York.¹⁷⁴¹

The next day, Hauptmann, although he still lacked an appetite, showed improvement. In fact, it was reported by his guards that they were “amazed” by Hauptmann’s “fortitude as the time drew near” for his transfer to the Trenton death house.¹⁷⁴² After “losing control” on learning the verdict, Hauptmann was said to have “regained his composure,” one guard quoted as saying that he showed “remarkable control.” It was also reported that “authorities were hopeful for a confession leading to an accomplice.”¹⁷⁴³ In fact, according to Lloyd Fisher, it was “within thirty minutes” after the verdict that Lieutenant Smith approached Hauptmann in his cell with a proposition:

Bruno, if you will tell what you know about the other $35,000 of the ransom

money – if you will tell us where the rest of the money is, we will see that you get a break.¹⁷⁴⁴

Fisher was “amazed.” How could the State claim during the trial that they had ed for almost the entire $50,000 ransom yet now ask Hauptmann this? Hauptmann’s letter to his mother best explained it:

Among other things, it was counted out to the jury that I had $49,986 differently placed, thus say and write just $14 less than $50,000. But what happened when I was in my cell, one half hour after the sentence! The prosecutor sent an officer of the State police to me, who said to me on his order: That the prosecutor had no interest in my death, but that I should tell him where the other $35,000 or $30,000 were.¹⁷⁴⁵

There’s also the matter of certain questions Wilentz put to Hauptmann during cross examination:

Q. You didn’t collect the $50,000 either? A. No.

Q. You got part of it, didn’t you? Who got the rest? A. The-

Q. Who got the rest of it? A. I don’t know anything about it.¹⁷⁴

This did not go unnoticed and was later pointed out to Governor Hoffman:

For instance, in the cross-examination, Wilentz asked Hauptmann, “Where is the rest of the money?” This is after he has placed $14,800 in Hauptmann’s possession, and is indicative that the State, despite the explanation of ants, believed the balance of the $50,000 was in existence and had not been recovered.¹⁷⁴⁷

Prior to his departure from Flemington, despite these “hopes” for a confession from authorities, Hauptmann was unwilling to budge, telling reporters:

If I have any confession to make I would have made it months ago and saved my wife and child all this worry.¹⁷⁴⁸

Confession

According to Governor Hoffman:

In my presence at a press conference in the State House, and in the presence of a number of other press representatives, a newspaperman openly boasted that his paper had paid Reilly’s retainer of $7500 and that over $50,000 had been offered for a confession from Hauptmann.¹⁷⁴

Hoffman also said that Mrs. Hauptmann was also under contract, and therefore

could not talk to any other news outlet. For this reason, she was constantly in the company of their reporter, Jean Adams,¹⁷⁵ who Anna affectionately referred to as “sort of a bodyguard for me.”¹⁷⁵¹ The “contract” was from Hearst’s New York Evening Journal at “$25 a week.”¹⁷⁵² Lloyd Fisher wrote that Anna signed the contract for “$20 per week” before he ed the defense team. He also claimed Anna was lured by the promise that the paper would be “friendly” toward her husband and would do everything to “help” him. Despite this, the Journal was the most “vicious” towards Hauptmann.¹⁷⁵³ The Hearst organization’s goal wasn’t just access, but obtaining a confession. As Sidney Whipple wrote, the “prize” would have been a story titled “How I Killed the Lindbergh Baby,” which could have fetched in upwards of “$150,000.”¹⁷⁵⁴ According to what Ellis Parker wrote Governor Hoffman, his information proved both Hoffman and Whipple right. Parker claimed that Journal reporter Jack Clements had tried to interview him before the trial. Clements told Parker that “they had arranged to have a man named Riley [sic] represent Hauptmann” and they had an “understanding that if Riley [sic] got any confession from Hauptmann, or his wife, that their newspaper would get the first break.”¹⁷⁵⁵ Parker felt Reilly “started out with the thought he [Hauptmann] was guilty, trying to get a break for the paper.”¹⁷⁵ Fisher’s experiences also seemed to bear this out. According to him, it was Jack Clements who steered Anna Hauptmann from Fawcett and toward Reilly in the first place.¹⁷⁵⁷ In Flemington, both Clements and Reilly stayed in the same house. Reilly accepted all collect calls made to him because Clements was paying for them and listened on the other line when those calls came in.¹⁷⁵⁸ Reilly also provided Clements with “advance information about defense plans,” which found its way into the Journal. Fisher claimed this advance information gave Wilentz more time to “gather ammunition” against defense witnesses – information, incidentally, which hadn’t even been shared with any of the other defense lawyers.¹⁷⁵ But the worst blow occurred the day the defense rested. Earlier, while on the stand and under direct examination by Fisher, Schwarzkopf appeared to commit perjury:

Q. Colonel, did you issue a statement saying that the suicide of Violet Sharpe virtually solved the kidnapping?

A. Such – I don’t recall any such statement.

Q. To the press. Do you say that you didn’t issue such a statement?

A. I am quite sure that I didn’t.

Q. Will you say positively whether you did or you did not, to the best of your knowledge?

A. I cannot tell you that, Mr. Fisher. I say I am quite sure that I didn’t.

Q. Well, did you feel that it did solve the kidnapping, the death of Violet Sharpe went a long way towards solving the kidnapping?

A. No, sir.

Q. Then you know that you never issued any such statement?

A. Yes, I say I am quite sure that I didn’t.

Q. If you had no such idea, Colonel, there is no question in your mind about it, is there?

A. No.

Q. Then why do you say you are quite sure? You are positive, aren’t you?¹⁷

Fisher had information proving that what Schwarzkopf had just denied, under oath, was true. The only issue was that he did not have the official press release and believed that if he produced it, it would be rejected as incorrect.¹⁷ ¹ Fisher asked for the press releases to be produced and Schwarzkopf refused, Wilentz arguing that it would “take a truck to bring them all in.” A compromise was struck, Judge Trenchard ruling that the press releases “three days surrounding Violet Sharpe’s suicide” would be produced. The defense saw this as a huge victory. They would recall Schwarzkopf as the last witness, leaving a lasting impression on the jury as to the truthfulness of the NJSP’s testimony.¹⁷ ² As the trial neared its end, and after the testimony of Ewald Mielk, to Fisher’s shock, Reilly announced: “The defense rests.”¹⁷ ³ Fisher reminded Reilly of their plans to recall Schwarzkopf and question him about the press releases, but Reilly was “adamant” and refused to change his mind.¹⁷ ⁴ Defeated, Fisher reed an equally dismayed Pope and Rosencrans at the defense table. Fisher later discovered the reason behind Reilly’s unusual move:

The next day, the newspaper man who brought Reilly into the case and who lived with him throughout his stay in Flemington, told me that Reilly had promised him the day before that Mielk would be the last witness. “That’s how we got that ‘Defense Rests’ edition on the street,” he explained, “before that guy left the stand!”¹⁷ ⁵

The press release which Fisher had forced Schwarzkopf to bring to court read:

The suicide of Violet Sharpe strongly tends to confirm the suspicions of the investigating authorities concerning her guilty knowledge of the crime against

Charles A. Lindbergh Jr.¹⁷

Fisher claimed that once Reilly lost Anna’s confidence, the Hearst organization turned their attention to him and offered “great sums of money” if he could produce a Hauptmann confession.¹⁷ ⁷ When Fisher balked at the offer, he was threatened with negative press.¹⁷ ⁸ Fisher said it was possible that the NJSP may have been motivated by such an offer in their post-trial attempts to get Hauptmann to confess.¹⁷

Ironically, Fisher himself approached Hauptmann about confessing. Sometime after the trial, he was given assurances that if Hauptmann were to confess, his sentence would be “commuted.”¹⁷⁷ Fisher told Hauptmann that, as his attorney, he had the “duty” to present this offer and urged Hauptmann, if he had something to confess, to “come clean”:

I told him that I had been advised by representatives of the prosecution that if he did so, he would never go to the electric chair.¹⁷⁷¹

Since that first offer, Fisher claimed he saw Hauptmann “perhaps three hundred times in the intervening months,” and “not once” did Hauptmann suggest he was willing to make such a deal, but instead continued to assert his innocence.¹⁷⁷² Robert Hicks also claimed to be privy to the commutation and monetary offers:

Also I mentioned the fact that I was present at Flemington after Hauptmann’s conviction when the New York Evening Journal offered him $75,000 for a confession, and likewise, when Prosecutor Hauck offered Hauptmann life imprisonment, which is technically, only 18 years under the N. J. laws, to change his story. Neither of these worked, so I was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt he would not change his story for anyone.¹⁷⁷³

Hoffman also addressed this by asking:

Why didn’t Hauptmann talk, when by doing so, even if his confession involved his participation as a lone kidnapper, he could have saved his life, and could have received, from newspapers, a sizable fortune for his wife and child, who could have gone back to and lived in comfort. ¹⁷⁷⁴

Concerning the Journal’s offer for Hauptmann’s confession, Fisher wrote to Governor Hoffman:

I also beg to advise that you were perfectly correct in your statement that the New York Journal offered $75,000 for a confession in this case, a statement which I see was denied by the Journal. The very same offer was made to me to be submitted to Hauptmann by a Hearst representative. I called this to the attention of Syd Boehm, and in trying to over it, he argued it wasn’t the New York Journal, it was the Hearst News Service, which is of course, just attempting to beat the devil around the bush.¹⁷⁷⁵

Schwarzkopf’s Reaction

After the verdict, Schwarzkopf issued an official press release:

I feel the verdict is in accordance with the evidence and that the ends of justice have been served. The people of Hunterdon County have thoroughly justified the confidence we have in them.

The presentation of the case by Attorney General Wilentz was not only masterful and resourceful but inspired, and the preparation was unquestionably the most thorough and competent that I have ever heard of.

I have said that this case is a triumph for coordinated and cooperative police work, and full credit should go to New York City Police and to the Federal agencies for their unfailing and comprehensive cooperation.

I am sensitive to and appreciative of the continuous loyalty and effective diligence of Captain John J. Lamb, Lieutenant Arthur T. Keaten and their associates in my department, who have worked uninterruptedly on this case since March 1, 1932 and who, through their efforts, have laid the foundation for the results attained today.

I hope that this verdict will act as a crime preventative throughout this nation and that the security and sanctity of the American home may be materially enhanced.¹⁷⁷

The Final Tally

According to Colonel Schwarzkopf, trial’s statistics were:

Number of days of the trial, 32 days, January 2nd to February 13th. Number of witnesses called, 162, 109 for State, 53 for the defense. Cost of the trial to the State, approximately $125,000. Size of the record; number of pages; number of words; 32 volumes, 7,894 pages, containing approximately more than a million

words.¹⁷⁷⁷

New York City Police told reporters that the total cost for their role in the investigation was over “$300,000,” the United Press reporting that all government agencies ran a total cost of about “$629,000.” The Associated Press had its own figure, putting the government’s expenses at over “1,000,000” dollars.¹⁷⁷⁸ Lloyd Fisher estimated that the entire cost of the Lindbergh kidnapping, from March 1, 1932 “to the night of the execution,” was more than “2,000,000” dollars compared to the defense budget of “$2900.”¹⁷⁷ Governor Hoffman put a price tag of “more than $1,181,000” for the State of New Jersey.¹⁷⁸ Fisher also asserted that 115 “wires” had been strung in Flemington during the trial. He compared this to the 1932 “Olympics in Los Angeles when only sixty five had been strung.”¹⁷⁸¹ Fisher also claimed that although 185 seats were reserved for the press, more than 500 were actually in attendance. The Hearst organization, Fisher wrote, got much more than their fair share of seats by making applications from each of their East Coast s. This “fooled” Curtiss, who didn’t know they all belonged to Hearst.¹⁷⁸²

Transfer

The night before his removal to Trenton, Hauptmann was interviewed in his cell, saying he believed Isidor Fisch “must have done this kidnapping.”¹⁷⁸³ Prior to his transfer, Sheriff Curtiss expressed concern for Hauptmann’s safety during the 23-mile journey to Trenton: “Somebody might take a pot shot at him or try to wreck the car he’s riding in.” Curtiss said he could not wait to get Hauptmann “out of my hands.”¹⁷⁸⁴

On February 16, at 9:30 AM, Hauptmann was handcuffed to Lieutenant Smith and Warden McCrea, and placed in the backseat of a Buick driven by Sergeant Crawford.

The car was guarded by another leading, containing three troopers and two deputy sheriffs, and a car following immediately in the rear, containing four troopers, which in turn was followed by another car containing three deputy sheriffs and one trooper. Procession proceeded at a rate of thirty-five miles per hour, to Trenton, and thence by a roundabout route to the prison, where the prisoner was delivered.¹⁷⁸⁵

Big Ed’s Departure

After Hauptmann’s conviction, his execution date was originally set for March 17. Fisher, Pope, and Rosencrans wanted to immediately file an appeal, but Reilly balked and insisted nothing should be done “until Wilentz came back from his vacation.”¹⁷⁸ Since “no one knew when” Wilentz would return from Florida, the other lawyers ignored Reilly and proceeded with the writ of error, which resulted in a temporary stay of execution. This infuriated Reilly, despite the fact that Wilentz did not return to New Jersey until a few days before the original execution date.¹⁷⁸⁷ Reilly attempted to discharge Fisher, insisting he must “get out of the case” within “forty-eight” hours.¹⁷⁸⁸ Anna discussed the matter with Hauptmann, who absolutely refused. A few days later, Reilly presented Anna with a bill for $5,800, which she paid, and then sent her on a cross-country tour to raise money for her husband’s defense fund. While in Chicago, Anna was asked by a reporter about a recent $25,000 bill submitted by Reilly. Anna immediately called Reilly’s office and spoke with his associate, Maurice Edelbaum, who informed her that is was not true and “to pay no attention” to it.¹⁷⁸ Anna returned to New Jersey and, upon visiting her husband in Trenton on April 3, found that such a bill had in fact been submitted. They decided that Reilly “should go.”¹⁷ According to Anna, her husband had expressed a “dislike” for Reilly very “early in the trial” but he was retained because “she persuaded him” to keep Reilly.¹⁷ ¹ The next day, Reilly was notified by telephone and letter that he was dismissed, leaving Lloyd Fisher as chief counsel.¹⁷ ² Reilly took the discharge “with both pain and anger,” announcing in an interview that he “he was not in the business of defending clients for his health”¹⁷ ³ and would sue for unpaid legal fees. He went on to say that he

believed Hauptmann was “innocent” of the “kidnapping” but that the “ransom money” was “an entirely different matter.”¹⁷ ⁴

Anna Hauptmann walking through the crowd outside of the Flemington Courthouse. (Author’s Collection)

Edward Reilly walking from the Flemington Courthouse. (Author’s Collection)

Execution

After a visit him in Trenton, Anna was impressed with her husband’s attitude. She wrote:

Today in his cell at Trenton he is so confident of a new trial … and complete vindication that he sometimes chides me because I become a little discouraged. He is always speaking of his home coming … always planning what we will do when he is back home with Mannfried and me. I have marveled at his lack of bitterness toward those responsible for his present position.¹⁷ ⁵

Hauptmann was considered “a good prisoner” by guards and prison officials. Chief Deputy Warden George L. Selby said:

He understands the prison rules and he’s obeying them. He’s a typical German soldier.¹⁷

On January 7, 1936, Colonel Kimberling visited Hauptmann, reminding him that unless the Court of Pardons intervened, his execution would take place on January 17, at 8:00 PM. Hauptmann looked to his spiritual advisor, Rev. John Mattheisen, with confidence. Nodding to the death chamber door, he said, “I won’t go out that door,” I’ll go out that one,” indicating the prison entrance.¹⁷ ⁷

Almost a week later, Governor Hoffman met with Attorney General Wilentz. Despite their disagreements on the execution, they came to an agreement which Hoffman later conveyed to Anna Hauptmann:

He has been convicted; he has been sentenced to die tomorrow. But you can save him. The Attorney General says that if Richard will agree to tell the whole story, he will go – or send one of his assistants – to the prison with me; and if he is convinced that the story is true, even if it shows that your husband was the only one who committed the crime, he will go with me before the Court of Pardons and ask to have his sentence changed to life imprisonment.¹⁷ ⁸

Anna went to the prison to relay the offer and returned Hauptmann’s answer: His story was the same. He had nothing more to confess.¹⁷ Hoffman told Wilentz, who fired back “to hell with it… if that’s still his attitude, I’m damned if I’m going to do anything to help him.”¹⁸ But Hoffman was not ready to give up and, that afternoon, granted Hauptmann a 30-day reprieve, the execution now set for March 31.

On Tuesday, March 31, 1936, at about 11 AM, Fisher visited Hauptmann. This time, the prisoner was not so confident, his lawyer finding him in terrible shape.

He had been sobbing very bitterly and looked very bad and was at the outset of our conversation unable to talk to me coherently.¹⁸ ¹

Hauptmann had been moved out of the cell that contained his cot, chairs, reading material, and his pictures of Anna and Manfred. He now sat in another cell with only a single chair. He asked Fisher why he had been moved, Fisher explaining that it was “procedure,” and that, all things considered, it was a “small matter what cell he was in.”¹⁸ ² Hauptmann said he deserved something better “on the last day he was to live.” Fisher departed, but returned around 3:30 PM to find

Hauptmann had “gotten control of himself” and was back to speaking both “intelligently and concisely.”¹⁸ ³ Fisher told Hauptmann about the Paul Wendel affair, currently under consideration by a grand jury, and promised to return with whatever further information he could learn. Fisher came back at around 8:20 PM, and Hauptmann asked: “It is good news. What is it?” Fisher told him a 48hour stay of execution had been granted.¹⁸ ⁴

On April 2, 1936, prison guards reported that Hauptmann woke at 10:00 AM after having “slept well.” He appeared confident and ate a breakfast of a roll and coffee. However, later in the morning, his mood seemed to change as he became “depressed and downcast.” By 1:00 PM, he seemed a bit more encouraged and smoked his pipe. A half an hour later, Anna arrived. After she departed, Hauptmann seemed “in good spirits.”¹⁸ ⁵

The following day, April 3, Hauptmann ate a regular breakfast of coffee, eggs, bread and butter, and corn flakes with milk. He spent the rest of the day reading the Bible,¹⁸ was moved to a temporary holding cell, given a fresh set of clothes, and his head re-shaved.¹⁸ ⁷ Fisher came to see him, finding Hauptmann quite stable under the circumstances. He said, “Fisher, you don’t know what I went through here Tuesday,” to which his lawyer replied, “yes Richard, I think I do.” Hauptmann continued:

You can’t have any idea. It was all I could do to control myself, and I don’t know what to do. If I break down, they will all say I am guilty, and if I fight with my heart and fight with my soul and don’t break down, they’ll say I am cold-blooded and just the sort of person to commit this crime. I am torn with emotion and almost crazy. Nobody will ever know what I went through Tuesday.¹⁸ ⁸

Fisher departed, promising that he would return before the execution. Meanwhile, after the numerous delays, preparations began again. Hauptmann was given his last meal, which consisted of celery, olives, salmon salad, corn fritters, sliced cheese, fruit salad, cake, and coffee with milk.¹⁸

Witnesses were required to have es and be present at the warden’s office at 7:15 PM.¹⁸¹ Some arrived early, just as they had on Tuesday, although many believed another reprieve was forthcoming. Only male reporters could witness the execution,¹⁸¹¹ and finally, after a long wait, they were lined up by twos and escorted into the prison. Among them was Damon Runyon, who said it seemed “anti-climactic,” since Kimberling had issued a 48-hour reprieve on Tuesday night.¹⁸¹² In all, 55 men, including 30 of the press, crammed into the little room to watch Hauptmann die.¹⁸¹³ Everyone was searched – even Warden Kimberling ¹⁸¹⁴, Captain Lamb and Lieutenant Keaten – a total of “four times,” Kimberling warning that anyone caught attempting to take a photo would be “prosecuted.”¹⁸¹⁵ He also warned against anyone “making a scene” or “pulling a fast one.” Many wondered if Hauptmann would break down and confess once in the electric chair, but Kimberling said the police witnesses had no authority inside the walls of the prison and that if Hauptmann wanted to “talk,” he would “handle it.”¹⁸¹ Kimberling had good reason for taking every precaution. Even the executioner, Robert Elliot, had been approached by two news representatives seeking his help to get around the rules, one reporter offering Elliot $10,000 to take part in a supposedly foolproof scheme. Elliott declined.¹⁸¹⁷

Inside the death chamber, the witnesses took their seats behind a chain which “separated [them] from the chair” by “about ten feet.”¹⁸¹⁸ The room was filled with “a dozen high-powered lights,” “had the appearance of a hospital laboratory, and even smelled like one.”¹⁸¹ Beside the chair stood Elliot and the physicians. Kimberling handed a clock to one of the guards, who held it up to document the time since no one was permitted to reach into their pockets for anything. Kimberling sent a messenger to the phone, to see if there were any last-minute reprieves and was informed there was not. This news finally sealed Hauptmann’s fate. Kimberling “nodded to one of the guards,” all eyes now focused on the door about 10 feet to the left of the electric chair.¹⁸²

Since the execution was scheduled for 8:00 PM, Lloyd Fisher returned to Hauptmann at about 7:45. On his arrival, Reverends Werner, Gourley, and Matthiesen stepped away from the cell. Fisher said Hauptmann was a “pasty,

greenish white color that comes to those confined.”¹⁸²¹ He asked Hauptmann if there was anything “last minute” he wanted to say, Hauptmann replying that he knew nothing about the crime and an innocent man was being sent to his death.¹⁸²² I found a very detailed and specific of the exchange, so to quote Fisher, I am altering the format to show the conversation:

[Fisher]: Hello, Richard.

[Hauptmann]: I can see by your face it is bad. Have you talked to the Governor?

[Fisher]: Yes, and his hands are tied. He can’t do anything.

[Hauptmann]: Does this mean it is the end?

[Fisher]: Yes Richard, it is the finish.

[Hauptmann]: I can’t believe it. I can’t believe that they will kill an innocent man. Certainly something must happen. They can’t take my life because I know nothing about this crime. Can’t you talk to the Governor again?

[Fisher]: It would be useless. It isn’t that the Governor doesn’t want to help. He can’t, he is powerless. (Fisher then places his hand on Hauptmann’s arm). If there is anything you know, anything you could say that would help you, please tell me. I can still stop this thing if you can say anything that will help clear the mystery up. If there is anything, I’ll go to the Governor at once and we can stop this.

[Hauptmann]: Lloyd, you know there is nothing more I can say. You above anyone, you know me best, know there is nothing I can say. You know there is nothing I know about this crime, about any part of it.

[Fisher]: Yes I believe that, Richard. Good-bye.

[Hauptmann]: You are sure there is nothing else can be done – the Judge, or the Governor, or the Warden, they can’t help?

[Fisher]: No, there is nothing they can do, but I will immediately go to a telephone in the Warden’s office and stay right by, hoping that a break of some kind will occur. I’ll be right there so there will be no chance of missing any good message if it comes. (Fisher then walked away but was quickly called back by a guard because Hauptmann had called out: “Lloyd.”)

[Hauptmann]: I want to say Good-bye to you. You have been kind. (Hauptmann then put his arm through the bars and the men shook hands).¹⁸²³

Fisher said Hauptmann knew all hope was lost, was “laboring under great emotion” but not “hysterical.” He asked Fisher to pursue the truth and clear his name:

Any thought created by antagonistic writers that he refrained from saying anything because he thought the death march was a hoax is sheer drivel. He knew he was going to die and still he had nothing to say.¹⁸²⁴

Fisher’s last impression of Hauptmann was that he had not been broken, physically or mentally. According to the ministers, after Fisher’s departure, Hauptmann “suddenly stood straight up from the chair” and asked Werner, Gourley, and Matthiesen to “please go away.” They stepped back and Hauptmann turned, faced the back of his cell, and…

…dropped down on his knees, and leaned on one elbow so that his forehead was almost touching the floor, and stayed in that position for about five minutes without making a sound.¹⁸²⁵

He rose, called the ministers back, and within a few minutes was marching toward the death chamber. Lloyd Fisher said “the ministers” relayed Hauptmann’s last words to him:

I have no hatred against anyone, not even Wilentz. I only wish I could face Condon at this minute. Please take good care of my wife and baby. Thank the Governor and the Warden and Mr. Fisher.¹⁸²

However, according to Governor Hoffman, Reverend Gourley’s of Hauptmann’s last words were: “Ich bin absolut unschuldig an dem Verbrechen das man mir zur Last legt.” Hoffman translated this as: “I am absolutely innocent about the crime with which I am burdened.”¹⁸²⁷

Hauptmann shook hands with his guards.¹⁸²⁸ As they left temporary holding cell 8, Hauptmann requested a brief stop at his old cell, number 9, so that he could take a last look at his son’s picture through the bars.¹⁸² The witnesses in the death chamber could hear the voices of the ministers even before anyone came into view. Hauptmann then entered, flanked by two guards and seated in the

chair at 8:41 PM. Reverends Werner and Matthiesen also accompanied Hauptmann, and one “stood directly in front of him,” blocking the view of many in the back of the room. Some tried to stand but were “clamped down by the heavy-handed guards behind them.”¹⁸³ Hauptmann was wearing a white shirt, khaki pants with a slit up the right leg, and slippers. Since his head had been “shaven clean” again that morning, it had “an almost skull-like appearance.”¹⁸³¹ Runyon believed Hauptmann looked “mentally dead” and later said that the guards agreed, telling Runyon that Hauptmann really “died” on Tuesday night, just prior to the last stay of execution.¹⁸³² Runyon also claimed that Hauptmann did not look at the witnesses, but walked “unfalteringly” toward his final destination, and that when the guards turned him “in that direction,” he voluntarily stepped “into the chair.”¹⁸³³ Hauptmann did “not seem afraid,” he did not “tremble,” and “his limbs” did not “shake.”¹⁸³⁴ Reporter Alfred Lewis said Hauptmann entered with a “ghostly white” appearance, exaggerated by his shaved head. Despite this, Lewis believed Hauptmann was “alert” and never seemed “more alive” when he saw him.¹⁸³⁵ Dr. Charles Mitchell described Hauptmann as “a mere skeleton of a man” and “more dead than alive” as he walked into the chamber.¹⁸³ Lewis said that Hauptmann did scan the room and the witnesses as he entered, but instead of immediately sitting down, appeared to move towards Kimberling, when the guards “whirled” him into the electric chair.¹⁸³⁷ James Kilgallen also observed Hauptmann make a “swift glance around the room.”¹⁸³⁸ Robert Hicks, Governor Hoffman’s official witness at the execution, claimed Hauptmann “stared at witnesses” while being strapped in.¹⁸³ Witness Philip Harmon also claimed Hauptmann “saw the people in the room,” and that “a slight movement of his head seemed to indicate what he saw.”¹⁸⁴

To such a man, every step, every motion, every flicker of the eye must be significant, momentous, perfect.¹⁸⁴¹

Mitchell saw Hauptmann’s eyes sweeping the witnesses but believed it was more of an unconscious act and that he truly did not know what was going on around him.¹⁸⁴² James Kilgallen described Hauptmann walking into the chamber as a “sad, wistful man attempting to force a smile to his lips,” but said he uttered no words.¹⁸⁴³ Runyon put it this way:

I thought Hauptmann was expressionless, save for an habitual smirk. Others saw that smirk as a sardonic smile. I thought he was almost in a stupor. Others thought he was quite conscious of his actions.¹⁸⁴⁴

Lewis echoed Runyon’s sentiment, saying no two reporters who witnessed an event saw it in precisely the same way.¹⁸⁴⁵ Dr. Mitchell believed Hauptmann was in a “trance” and didn’t even “see” the electric chair, and if not for the guards grabbing his arms to “wheel” him into it, he would have walked past it.¹⁸⁴ Elliott claimed that Hauptmann did walk past the chair and “would have collided with a physician” if not for the guard.¹⁸⁴⁷ Whether or not Hauptmann had purposely walked past the chair was something those who witnessed the event discussed among themselves.¹⁸⁴⁸ I have never been able to learn their conclusions, if any.

Hauptmann offered no resistance. The executioner finished soaking the electrodes and completed all other necessary tasks. Hauptmann’s limbs were strapped in position, and an electrode fastened to his right leg.¹⁸⁴ Elliott stepped forward and placed a “half-mask over Hauptmann’s face,” leaving the “tip of the nose,” “mouth,” and “chin” exposed.¹⁸⁵ Hauptmann made no sound, the “expected break-down and confession was not forthcoming.”¹⁸⁵¹ The lack of a statement was surprising to the reporters, who expected either another proclamation of innocence or a last minute confession.¹⁸⁵² Elliott wrote that Hauptmann “gripped” the arms of the chair, stared “straight ahead,” and “gave no indication that he wished to speak.”¹⁸⁵³ Reverend Matthiesen began reading from the scriptures in German, continuing throughout the entire ordeal.¹⁸⁵⁴ Elliot stepped to the large wheel located on a behind the chair. He looked to Kimberling, who nodded.¹⁸⁵⁵ Elliot watched Hauptmann and waited for him to exhale before rapidly spinning the rheostat, causing the indicator needle to immediately shoot up, waver, then drop back to zero.¹⁸⁵ Kimberling did not look, his eyes fixed to the floor.¹⁸⁵⁷ As the 2,000 volts of electricity surged through Hauptmann’s body, Dr. Mitchell saw he had “strained at the straps,” while “thin wisps of smoke curled upward from the electrodes on his skull and right leg.”¹⁸⁵⁸ Elliot twice repeated this process, the “humming of the current” obliterating the “voice of the minister” who was still “intoning.”¹⁸⁵ Finally, at

8:44 PM, Elliot took his hand off the wheel.¹⁸ As the last surge of electricity dissipated, Hauptmann’s body “dropped limply,” his “mouth” remaining “open” as the “faint smoke” continued to rise from him.¹⁸ ¹ Elliot lifted the mask and examined Hauptmann’s eyes, then ripped open his shirt for the doctors.¹⁸ ² Hicks claimed that upon removal of the mask, he could “smell burning flesh,” noticing that Hauptmann’s “eyes were still open and looking straight upwards” and that his face had “two burns, the size of a silver dollar on the upper forehead.”¹⁸ ³

The prison physician, Dr. Howard Weisler, approached Hauptmann and pressed a stethoscope to his chest. Each of the five other doctors present also examined the body. During Dr. Mitchell’s examination, he believed he heard a “faint flutter of the cardiac muscle,” shocked that Hauptmann might still be alive.¹⁸ ⁴ The doctors then consulted, another revealing that he had also detected “a sound in Hauptmann’s chest.”¹⁸ ⁵ They re-examined the body and no sound was detected.¹⁸ Dr. Weisler announced “this man is dead.”¹⁸ ⁷ Kimberling finally raised his head, turning to the “big yellow clock” which read 8:47 PM, and said, “That’s it.”¹⁸ ⁸ Four guards quickly moved to the electric chair, loosened the straps, and carried the lifeless body to the autopsy room.¹⁸ As they left, one of the witnesses shouted, “It’s terrible!”¹⁸⁷

Damon Runyon called the execution “undramatic, because they hurried him in, and hurried him off” without Hauptmann ever “uttering a word.”¹⁸⁷¹ Lewis claimed that he was so “upset” by what he saw that he needed a couple shots of whiskey before he could write about it.¹⁸⁷² Runyon also asserted that word got out that Hauptmann was dead almost immediately because “it was said” that one of the papers “had a guard” in a prison watchtower, ready to “give a signal” to someone in the street below.¹⁸⁷³ “Thousands” of people congregated outside in anticipation, the press setting up their telegraph wires “in a garage across the street.”¹⁸⁷⁴ Once the witnesses were led out of the death chamber, the reporters “raced pell mell across the street” to flash the news.¹⁸⁷⁵

As promised, Fisher remained in the warden’s office during the execution. He was seen leaving, head bowed, tears in his eyes, refusing any comment to

reporters. Kimberling said:

There really isn’t much to say. Hauptmann made no request and no confession. He did not lose his courage but at no time did he smile.¹⁸⁷

New Jersey State Police and Trenton Police posted outside of the State Prison pending Hauptmann’s execution. (Author’s Collection)

Trenton Police posted outside of the State Prison prior to Hauptmann’s execution. (Author’s Collection)

Reporters in a garage across the street from the State Prison awaiting word of the execution. (Author’s Collection)

Col. Mark Kimberling answering questions about Hauptmann’s execution. (Author’s Collection)

Chronology

February 16, 1935: Hauptmann arrived at N. J. State Prison and assigned #17400. Sentenced to die the week of March 18, 1935, in the electric chair.

February 19, 1935: Colonel Mark O. Kimberling appointed Principal Keeper (Warden) at N. J. State Prison.

February 21, 1935: Writ of Error. Stay of execution.

December 16, 1935: New Death Warrant set date of execution for January 17, 1936.

January 16, 1936: 30-day reprieve granted by Governor Harold G. Hoffman.

February 19, 1936: New execution date scheduled for March 31, 1936.

March 31, 1936: Mercer County Grand Jury requested delay of execution for 48

hours. Col. Kimberling rescheduled execution for April 3, 1936.

April 3, 1936: Hauptmann executed at exactly 8:47½ PM.

The Execution Effect

After the execution, Attorney General Wilentz remained firm in his convictions: The evidence in the case was irrefutable, no ransom money had “appeared” after Hauptmann’s arrest, and nothing existed to “point to the guilt of other persons.”¹⁸⁷⁷ Wilentz’s position was that “Hauptmann and, Hauptmann alone” committed the crime.¹⁸⁷⁸ Of course, none of this was true. Anyone who has read both V1 and V2 of The Dark Corners can see that a great deal of “evidence” was refutable, with additional evidence pointing to the guilt of others. Further, Wilentz’s assertion about the ransom money is completely false because ransom bills continued to appear after Hauptmann’s arrest.

Ransom Money Post-Hauptmann

Many $5 bills continued turning up. While this obviously disproves Wilentz’s assertion, it could nevertheless be argued that these bills were merely “floaters,” providing a reason why authorities would dismiss this.¹⁸⁷ But since the IRS asserted that over $30,000 of the ransom money “was still uned for,” the Associated Press turned to Special Agent in Charge Hugh McQuillan of the Treasury Department for answers.¹⁸⁸ McQuillan offered three possibilities: The missing bills were hidden, somehow ed through the Federal Reserve undetected before being destroyed, or “still in circulation.” However, a New York Federal Reserve official was also interviewed and claimed it was “out of the question” that any ransom bill slipped past them “except” during the “first two weeks,” after the payment and when things were still disorganized.¹⁸⁸¹

Obviously, after gold notes were recalled, any bill ed would be turned in, unless the receiver decided to hoard it. Once deposited, these bills would be immediately pulled from circulation and forwarded to the Federal Reserve. As to the circulation of Federal Reserve bills, this official described their circulation life:

$5 bill: “Ranges from six to eight months.” This is because they became “so used” they must go to the Treasury Department to be replaced.

$10 bill: “They circulate less, but they are returned to banks more frequently.”

$20 bill: “Comes back to the bank usually before it has circulated a month. It is not so much used as the ten-dollar bill, but it shows up for scrutiny more than twice as often.”¹⁸⁸²

With this in mind, in the ransom cache, the $10s consisted of two Federal Reserve notes and 1,498 gold notes. The $20s consisted of 250 federal reserve notes and 1,000 gold notes. The $5s numbered 2,000, all Federal Reserve notes.¹⁸⁸³ Also interesting was Special Agent Seery’s August 28, 1934 report in which he stated that, after reviewing the list of ransom bills found “to date,” he reached two definite conclusions:

1. That all five-dollar ransom bills are in circulation.

2. That the major portion of the ten and twenty-dollar gold certificates have not yet been placed in circulation (that is, at least not in the New York Federal Reserve zone) and are still being held by the kidnappers, who were disposing of them singly during the winter of 1933-1934, prior to the Presidential Order

recalling all gold money issue during 1934.¹⁸⁸⁴

Seery believed it was a “fact” that “very few gold certificates of any denomination” were “presently in circulation” and that the “country” was “gold conscience.” This, he believed, made the public “more inclined to carefully scrutinize the source from which gold certificates are received,” making the gold notes more valuable than ever as a tool to track down the kidnappers, due to the fact that the “major portion of the ransom gold certificates have not as yet been placed in circulation.”¹⁸⁸⁵ As it turned out, Hauptmann was captured for that very reason. This is interesting when one also considers Lieutenant Smith’s attempt to learn from Hauptmann where the “other $35,000” was immediately after his conviction.

So, clearly, while we see the “floater” explanation could apply to the $5s, it could in no way apply to the gold certificates that turned up after Hauptmann’s arrest. One example of this is mentioned in V2, which proves a gold note was discovered on September 29, 1934.¹⁸⁸ The only question as it pertains to this bill was when it was actually ed, which, in this case, could have been either September 12 or September 20, in Utica, New York. Further exposing Wilentz’s lie, there are multiple examples of ransom money being ed after Hauptmann’s arrest, which included both $10 and $20 gold certificates. Even The New York Times noted some bills turning up after Hauptmann’s arrest on October 1, 1934.¹⁸⁸⁷ However, this was a cause of no great concern to the prosecutors. In fact, the NJSP was instructed to investigate these bills, as they might “possibly be traced back to Hauptmann as the er, which would strengthen the case against him.”¹⁸⁸⁸ This was why police were encouraging banks to continue searching for the ransom despite Hauptmann’s arrest. However, while some bills may have been ed prior to Hauptmann’s arrest, some, it seems, were not. But ultimately, none could be shown as tracing back to Hauptmann. Here are some examples:

A $10 gold certificate ransom bill was discovered on September 26, 1934, at the Corn Exchange Bank on 82nd Street and Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights,

Long Island.¹⁸⁸ It was traced to the proprietor of the Avalon Meat Market, Max Gottschall, who claimed it was received during the course of business at his market, but could offer no information on who had given it to him.¹⁸ Another $10 gold certificate ransom bill was discovered at the Corn Exchange Bank at Fordham Road and Decatur Avenue in the Bronx, on October 3, 1934. Police quickly determined this bill had been included in a deposit made by Mrs. Marcella Turchiarelli. When her husband was interviewed, he said he received this bill from a customer at his Meat Market at 2400 Webster Avenue in the Bronx, on September 29, 1934.¹⁸ ¹ Turchiarelli told Special Agent Leslie that he “could not recall from whom he received the above noted ransom bill, but he believes he must have taken it in from some one [sic] of his customers” on Saturday the 29th.¹⁸ ² Were the Turchiarellis familiar with Condon? Fisch? Anybody other than Hauptmann connected to this case in some way? Nobody asked and no further investigation was made. As it concerned the postHauptmann ransom money ings, researcher Robert Purdy was probably the first person to ever take a serious look at them. As it concerned the Turchiarelli bill, Purdy wrote:

Hauptmann himself ed bills in such establishments in August and September 1934. But this bill was ed to Mr. Turchiarelli on Saturday, September 29, 10 days after Hauptmann’s arrest.

The implication is clear. Somebody was ing ransom gold notes in the Bronx 10 days after Hauptmann’s arrest and was doing so in the same manner that bills had been ed previously. This doesn’t exonerate Hauptmann, because he followed the pattern of meat, vegetable and fruit market purchases himself in August/September 1934 and it seems unlikely that two unconnected people would be ing ransom money independently in the same locality via the same means.¹⁸ ³

Other ransom bills also turned up. On December 12, 1934, Lieutenant Finn learned a $20 gold certificate ransom bill had been discovered at the Corn Exchange Bank on 375 East 149th Street. It was learned that it came from Henry

Grobe of Melrose Avenue in the Bronx, who had exchanged it for other currency.¹⁸ ⁴ He claimed he received it from his neighbor, Mrs. Joseph Lang,¹⁸ ⁵ and that it came from the Grand Union Grocery Store at 853 Melrose Avenue “about 3 months ago,” in receipt of having cashed a check. Police interviewed store manager William Gartelmann, who could give them no information other than the fact that Mrs. Lang did cash her checks there.¹⁸ Corporal Horn then deemed the bill “impossible to trace” and no further investigation was made into Mrs. Lang, her husband, or any of his associates.¹⁸ ⁷

Police also learned that two $20 gold certificate ransom bills were received at the Federal Reserve Bank on May 1, 1935, in a deposit from the Sterling National Bank at Broadway and 39th Street. Police interviewed the head paying teller, who recognized the deposit and produced the deposit slip which revealed that all gold certificates, except one, came from Jacob Frank of the Dank Contracting Company.¹⁸ ⁸ When interviewed, Frank told police that all of the money deposited came from his boss Isidore Friedman. Friedman was interviewed and told police that ever since his wife lost a considerable amount of money in 1931, due to the numerous bank failures, he kept his money in a vault in his home, first noticing gold certificates there “about a year and a half ago.”¹⁸ Friedman added that from “time to time” he would take money out for investment purposes and, from “time to time,” his wife would add money, recalling that she withdrew their children’s savings “just before the bank holiday” then “hoarded” it in the vault. He also ed that his wife received a “large dividend” that also went into the vault sometime in May 1932. Police learned that Mrs. Friedman also had a savings at Central Savings Bank, which interested them because it had been “Hauptmann’s bank.” They considered the “possibility that some time or other she may have cashed a check or procured money from that Bank which may have found its way into the vault.”¹ Friedman also told police that they “do considerable business” with Continental Bank and the National City Bank of New York and that, at one time, had “as much as $75,000 lying in the vault.” Friedman, as well as police, believed there was very little chance of ing where these two $20s came from. Haussling’s conclusions:

Mr. Friedman has been in the contracting business in N.Y.C. for the past twenty-

eight years and impressed these officers as being honest, wealthy and particularly to his nationality, cannot by any stretch of imagination have any connection with the Lindbergh Case.¹ ¹

But wasn’t it possible that some business , employee, family member, friend, acquaintance, or anybody Friedman knew could have been the source for this money? Apparently not. No further questions necessary…

In January 1935, Special Agent Sharp wrote a memo to Special Agent in Charge Harvey. Sharp reported that “his” confidential informant told that an attorney named George A. Turley of 521 5th Avenue in New York said that “the Lindbergh case is not yet cleaned up” because a client of his came to him and asked Turley’s advice about the purchase of some of this ransom money at “33 and one-third cents on the dollar.”¹ ² Special Agent Sharp believed his informant was reliable and that Turley had, in fact, likely made these statements. He suggested that Turley be approached under the ruse that someone known to be in possession with the Lindbergh ransom had been trailed to his office, that it was known that this individual conferred with Turley, and it was therefore definitely established that he had information of value to the case. This, Sharp believed, would compel Turley to divulge what he knew.¹ ³ (Unfortunately, I have never found a follow up to this. A report could exist, or the information could have been simply forwarded to New Jersey for their consideration and not pursued.)

Sometime in February 1935, a story appeared in the American Banker, which stated “that some of the gold certificates have appeared recently through the banks” and urged vigilance.¹ ⁴ As the months ed, more stories hit the press about someone receiving another Lindbergh ransom bill. Whether these s were true is hard to know because there are no corresponding reports at the NJSP to consult. In fact, the once welcomed news of bills appearing after Hauptmann’s conviction now became grounds for conjecture about possible accomplices and a source of embarrassment for authorities. The ransom money now represented an open-ended question to a case New Jersey wanted closed. After Schwarzkopf

received a telegram from J. Edgar Hoover, advising him that the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank held “forty nine thousand A and B five dollar federal reserve notes available for examination,”¹ ⁵ the reply was swift:

This department contemplates no examination of notes referred to in your telegram this date STOP Suggest that any identified notes be taken out for destruction.¹

While this certainly did not end all inquiries concerning bills which came into the New York Federal Reserve, it does show a lack of interest in opening any more potential cans of worms. And as the word “inquiry” implies, efforts were far less than in any real investigation which would have occurred had Hauptmann not already been in custody.

On October 16, 1935, Governor Hoffman made his famous visit to Hauptmann’s cell. After this meeting, Hoffman’s real involvement in the case began. As previously mentioned, in late January 1936, Hoffman sent a letter to Schwarzkopf advising him that he believed there was “abundant evidence” that “other persons participated in the crime.” It also directed Schwarzkopf “with every resource at our command, to continue a through and impartial search for the detection and apprehension of every person connected with this crime.”¹ ⁷ Unfortunately, this was more political theater than anything else. Hoffman did not know which among the NJSP he could trust. He also believed most were loyal to Schwarzkopf and knew that Schwarzkopf’s loyalties lay with Attorney General Wilentz, both of whom had a personal interest in seeing that the Lindbergh case remained closed. Hoffman’s position is best shown in the following testimony to the Mercer County grand jury regarding the Wendel matter:

You appreciate I have been somewhat in the same situation when it comes to a matter of determining whether or not the trial of this man, Hauptmann, was fair, the character of evidence and testimony presented. You can see that as Governor

in such a situation I could not call upon the prosecuting officials, who in this case was the Attorney-General, who had prosecuted the case for any police work or investigation in connection with it; under the circumstances I am not able to use the services of the State Police, consequently my investigation has been conducted by volunteer citizens, who without any pay but in the interest of justice, have been trying to develop certain things.¹ ⁸

Hoffman looked outside the NJSP for people he could trust to assist with his investigations, while keeping the NJSP in the dark. Evidence of this came January 1936, when, on the governor’s behalf, Robert Hicks spoke with the acting assistant treasurer to better understand the redemption process. Included in the memo that followed:

Confirming our informal discussion of today you are advised that paper currency, including Gold Certificates, received in this office for redemption in the regular course of business are put through the redemption process and destroyed without records being maintained of serial number of such notes.¹

Hoffman also reached out to Monmouth County Prosecutor T. Ramon Bazely, requesting a loan of his county detective, William S. Mustoe. The request was granted and Mustoe was partnered with Leo Meade, a private investigator who previously worked on the Lindbergh case for prosecutor Anthony Hauck.¹ ¹

Previous lackluster effort gave Hoffman good reason to take such measures, as can be seen during a January 1936 exchange between FBI Director Hoover and Captain Lamb, when Hoover forwarded information received from his Chicago office concerning a reporter named Joe Hanson, who claimed:

Have something which may break case if interested. Send representative authorized to do business.¹ ¹¹

Captain Lamb responded to Hoover inquiring what, if any, investigation was made to validate this claim. Hoover wrote back that although it was Hanson’s belief that a man named Clarence Bowman of 1200 Pennoyer Avenue in Grand Haven, Michigan, was in possession of ransom money, “no further investigative activity was conducted.” Since Hanson offered no “proof,” the FBI made no “attempt made to determine whether the alleged ransom bills was, in fact, part of the ransom money.”¹ ¹² Captain Lamb responded, not to request a courtesy investigation, but to thank Hoover for his “continued interest and cooperation.”¹ ¹³ Did Bowman in fact possess ransom money? Apparently, police did not care enough to find out.

Meanwhile, Meade and Mustoe ran down specific investigations involving ransom money. Henry Uhlig told them that he “heard” that a German knew the identity of someone who “burned a considerable quantity of the ransom money following the arrest of Hauptmann.”¹ ¹⁴ Meade and Mustoe learned that this story traced back to a “Mrs. Hirche,” who worked at a bakery at 380 East 167th Street. It was there she supposedly “overheard” a woman named Sophie Steub talk about the ransom money. According to the story, Steub worked as a maid for the “Herbert” family of 350 Central Park West after the trial, and said:

The man of the house had purchased $5000. of the ransom from Isidor Fisch for the sum of $2500., but upon reading of the arrest of Hauptmann and the subsequent finding of a large quantity of this ransom money under his control this man became fearful and destroyed it by burning it.¹ ¹⁵

Meade and Mustoe tracked down Mrs. Hirche, who told them she did “not recall hearing such a story, but she expressed a willingness to assist in determining the truth or falsity of the rumor.”¹ ¹ Meade and Mustoe believed there was nothing more they could do, and the investigation ended. We see here that there were many people pretending to see or hear things that never occurred and there were just as many, if not more, afraid of the consequences if they itted to hearing or seeing something related to the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Sometime in March 1936, several newspapers were reporting that a $10 gold certificate, identified as a Lindbergh ransom bill, was ed at an Ellenville, New York, grocery store.¹ ¹⁷ The store owner, Rae Goldberg, said the bill was handed to her “folded up in a square” which she did not open up until later. Upon discovering it was a gold note she “offered it to a salesman for the Fancher-Snyder Co., Middletown, in payment of goods.”¹ ¹⁸ According to the newspaper s, the salesman covered his territory in “Pennsylvania” and deposited it in a local bank, where it was confirmed the bill was from the Lindbergh ransom and would be forwarded to Washington. District Attorney Cleon Murray investigated but could only confirm that Mrs. Goldberg had a possessed the gold certificate.¹ ¹ Governor Hoffman’s only recourse was to write to Mrs. Goldberg and ask for a description of the person who ed the note. Mrs. Goldberg replied, writing she could not “who gave the money.”¹ ²

On April 16, Hoover again wrote to Attorney General Wilentz, advising him that the Treasury Department was in possession of “several hundred dollars comprising the bills used in the Lindbergh Kidnapping” and wanted to know if it should be retained or if “it would now be agreeable with this Bureau and other law enforcement agencies if this currency is destroyed.”¹ ²¹ Wilentz responded:

I know of no good purpose that will be served by further retaining the currency to which you refer.¹ ²²

On April 25, 1936, Governor Hoffman read a news report–“Missing Lindbergh Ransom Notes Continue to Mystify Searchers”¹ ²³ – and learned of the potential destruction of a quantity of ransom money at the U.S. Treasury. He quickly ordered Schwarzkopf to put a stop to it and provide him a list of the bills in question, which he believed amounted to $450.00. Schwarzkopf wrote Hoover and advised that after consulting Governor Hoffman, the governor “requested that this money be continued to be retained by the Treasury Department.”¹ ²⁴ Hoover replied that the money would remain intact until further notice.¹ ²⁵

Schwarzkopf also provided Hoffman with a list of the serial numbers of the bills, comprising the sum of $445.00 submitted to the Treasury from the Federal Reserve of New York City on April 10, 1936.¹ ² Hoffman ordered that copies of all reports involving investigation into this group of bills be sent to his attention. Corporal Horn visited the New York Federal Reserve and spoke with James Logue, superintendent of the Money Division. Several of the serial numbers associated with this group of bills weren’t even known to the NJSP at the time. Logue’s memory was sketchy, and he suggested police to go to the Treasury Department in Washington, where he said all bills would have a slip of paper attached, noting each bill’s history and origin.¹ ²⁷ Horn and Lieutenant Keaten went to Washington, but found some of the listed bills had nothing “attached” and others still had “no report attached.”¹ ²⁸ Further, three bills of those were not ransom bills at all, and some of them were documented in other places, such as the Isidore Friedman bills, which were included in this “consignment of $445.” However, there were four previously unknown bills, except as recorded in Horn’s report:

1. No Report of Investigation or slip by Mr. Logue attached.

2. Piece of Bank wrapper attached and marked “found 5-15-35 from National City Bank of New York” (No Report).

3 & 4. Piece of Bank wrapper attached and marked, “found 5-24-35 from Chase” (No report). Both of these bills had one slip attached on which is written by Mr. Logue, “To be held at request of N.Y. City Police.”¹ ²

This implies that bills were turned in without any investigation at all. Perhaps NYPD investigated, perhaps not. But one thing for certain is that the NJSP had no knowledge of these particular bills. The first bill listed above could have originated from anywhere before finding its way to the New York Federal Reserve. For all anyone knew, it could have been one of those mentioned in the various newspaper articles. Unfortunately, by the time Governor Hoffman

understood the entirety of the ransom money angle, it wasn’t until Kimberling replaced Schwarzkopf, on June 17, 1936, that Hoffman had any real ability to investigate. With Hoffman thwarted by Schwarzkopf at every turn, Kimberling was the perfect choice to replace him. He was honest and trustworthy, serving as deputy superintendent of the NJSP from 1921 to 1929, before accepting the post of superintendent of the New Jersey Reformatory at Rahway. Kimberling also shared similar beliefs with Governor Hoffman concerning the Lindbergh Kidnapping. He always believed the case was “very poorly investigated,” “bungled from the beginning,” and that some evidence may “have been manufactured.”¹ ³

However, by late June, it was too late to do anything meaningful as it concerned the ransom money. But this did not deter Hoffman, and he pressed on as best he could. Even after Hoffman’s term was up, Colonel Kimberling continued to look into matters. In May 1938, it was brought to his attention by Hoover that a $10 ransom gold certificate may have been discovered in North Carolina by Highway Patrol Sergeant W. M. Nail¹ ³¹ on May 3, when a woman of “about fifty years” ed a $10 gold certificate at a concession stand for the “Sheesley Shows.” The manager, E. H. Smith, turned the bill over to an Ashville lawyer, George Pennell, who took it to a bank. The teller examined the bill and told Mr. Pennell it was “one of the bills in the Lindbergh kidnapping case,” which prompted Nail to inform the FBI.¹ ³² Kimberling wrote to Sergeant Nail for information, including this in his letter:

I hope that you will understand that we are not carrying on a definite investigation of the Lindbergh case, however, we never consider a case closed as long as there is any tangible evidence or clues to run out.¹ ³³

Sergeant Nail replied that the FBI’s information was correct. He also ed the First National Bank in Asheville about the bill and was informed that all gold certificates had been forwarded to the Federal Reserve Bank.¹ ³⁴ Even in the summer of 1939, when a $20 gold note appeared at the National State Bank in Elizabeth, New Jersey, troopers investigated upon learning it fell within serial

number range. But once this bill was checked against the actual list the serial itself, it proved not to be a ransom bill.¹ ³⁵

More Execution Aftermath - Others

The day before Hauptmann’s execution, Governor Hoffman expressed his true feelings in his testimony, which amounted to Hauptmann’s last chance for a reprieve, before the Mercer County grand jury:

Q (Mr. Freeman) Have you any other suggestions or remarks you would like to offer to the Grand Jury at this time?

A No, Major, except to repeat the request made before, that is if at any time during your deliberations the doubt as to the guilt of the man who is now under sentence to die tomorrow night should come up as part of your discussion, I should like very much to be called on to advise this body as to my reasons for believing that this man couldn’t have committed the crime as charged, but I would want to do that only if that does come within your deliberations.¹ ³

Immediately after Hauptmann’s execution, Governor Hoffman began to work on an official statement. In his rough draft, he wrote:

Bruno Richard Hauptmann is dead. I am convinced that others equally guilty have escaped punishment. If that conviction is true, I am unable to see how any American can fail to share my desire to see these persons apprehended and punished.¹ ³⁷

Hoffman believed the question of life imprisonment or death was “relatively unimportant to securing the complete solution” to the crime.¹ ³⁸ In his official statement, he said:

If, instead of Hauptmann not being guilty alone, he was not guilty at all, there is another common danger to be considered. There is the danger that any citizen may walk around a street corner into a set of circumstances which will bring the hand of the law upon his shoulder and hurry him to prison or death, upon circumstantial evidence, for a crime he has not committed.

There is ground for both doubts in the case of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. There are contradictions, impossibilities and inconsistencies in the evidence upon which he was convicted. Already there is the growth of a legend that he was not guilty and that he died unjustly. Such a legend as this may work great injury to the law and public safety.¹ ³

On the same day as his statement, Hoffman wrote to attorney John Lambeth:

I am not convinced that full justice was done in the Hauptmann case. The evidence upon which he was convicted was circumstantial and of doubtful value. Every possible obstacle has been thrown in the way of a fair investigation of this case but I am sure that time will prove that I was entirely justified in an honest endeavor to secure the full truth before the execution of Hauptmann. Under the limits of the New Jersey Constitution, I was prohibited from granting another reprieve. Had I the power I would have gladly exercised it.¹ ⁴

Governor Hoffman remained consistent in this belief. In another letter he wrote:

My action in the Lindbergh case has been particularly misrepresented, - yet, no action of mine in this case has been without precedent. It was – and still is, my belief that justice would have been better served had it been possible to keep Bruno Richard Hauptmann alive until the case could have been completely solved. I was, – and am – greatly concerned over the desire of enforcement and prosecution authorities in this State to simply “bury,” with the conviction and execution of one man, a dastardly crime which was obviously committed by more than one person.¹ ⁴¹

Before a potential interview, Hoffman wrote out his feelings in a mock Q & A. Here are some points of interest:

He believes the police “bungled” the case and that finding a man in possession of some of the ransom money they resorted to questionable tactics to hurry him to the chair and “close the books.” He believes that the trial was not conducted under circumstances that would permit the orderly dispensation of justice; that Hauptmann should have been kept alive, behind prison bars, until all efforts had been exhausted to detect and apprehend every person who had a hand in the crime.¹ ⁴²

He continued:

In this case, if the State’s principal witnesses told the truth, there were others involved in the crime and they should be found. For the authorities to sit back, fold their hands, and maintain that the case has been solved is, to me, highly reprehensible. There are issues more important than the life of one man.¹ ⁴³

Hoffman went on to write many articles concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping, some published, some unpublished. Until his death in 1954, he remained convinced there was more to the crime than the official story of a lone-wolf

kidnapper, as best exemplified here:

I believe that the crime was committed by more than one person. I believe it would have been difficult to execute that crime without the assistance of someone who was on the inside either the Lindbergh or the Morrow household.¹ ⁴⁴

As for Lloyd Fisher, he never forgave the press for its treatment of Hauptmann, writing:

No man in all history has ever been so pilloried by the public press, never a man so universally condemned by commentators, no man ever treated so vilely by those whose sacred duty it is to report facts as they find them to those people who rely on them for their news of the events of the day.¹ ⁴⁵

But just what were Fisher’s beliefs about Hauptmann’s involvement? His earliest position is in an off-the-record interview with “The Post,” where he commented:

We are not called upon to defend Hauptmann on the extortion charge, nor do we intend to. We intend only to prove that Hauptmann was not the baby’s murderer.¹ ⁴

While I have no idea if this was ever published, it was apparently ed along to Schwarzkopf to reveal the potential defense strategy. It continued:

[Q] O. K. As I reconstruct it, then, the defense is going to let the State contend

that Hauptmann, seeing an opportunity to collect some easy money from the Lindbergh family, wrote some notes, made a with the [sic] Condon, and then collected the money. Is that right?

[Fisher] Broadly speaking, yes.

[Q] Give me a little more detail won’t you?

[Fisher] Well, there were as I said earlier, thousands of ransom notes written. Many people had the same idea. Hauptmann may have written some. Through some curious quirk, he may have been one of the persons whose notes seemed to offer some signs of authenticity. The rest was easy. This is not saying that Hauptmann did do this. I am merely posing a hypothetical situation.

[Q] Are you denying, now, that he wrote the notes or collected the money.

[Fisher] No. but it’s up to the State to prove he did. I am not interested so long as it does not bear upon the kidnapping and the murder. It’s murder that the State has to prove, not extortion.¹ ⁴⁷

Over the years, some of have mischaracterized Fisher as believing Hauptmann was guilty. Any amount of research shows that he suggested on several occasions that Hauptmann might not have survived any case involving “stolen property or even perhaps of extortion.”¹ ⁴⁸ This sentiment was nothing new. In fact, during a 1951 interview with George Hawke, Fisher said “no one took the Fisch story seriously” and, if he had been involved from the beginning, would have had him “plead guilty to extortion and/or possession of ransom money.”¹ ⁴

Fisher always believed that Hauptmann was either a party to the extortion or had become a buyer, or fence, for the ransom receiver.¹ ⁵

But when it came to the charges of “kidnapping or murder,” Fisher remained rock solid in his belief Hauptmann was “innocent.”¹ ⁵¹ He kept his promise to Hauptmann and continued to pursue the truth after the execution. Fisher was cooperative with Governor Hoffman’s efforts and, on May 24, 1937, Hoffman “nominated” Fisher to “replace Anthony Hauck, Jr. as Hunterdon County Prosecutor.”¹ ⁵² Fisher asked State Trooper Ray Bastedo to work for him. Bastedo resigned from the NJSP, then, as Fisher’s investigator, was ordered to pursue all leads which came into that office pertaining to the Lindbergh case – hardly the actions of a man who believed his dead client was a lone-wolf kidnapper and murderer. For the rest of his life, Fisher believed several people were involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping and that Hauptmann “could have saved himself if he told all he knew.”¹ ⁵³

Interviewed “shortly before his death” in 1960, Lloyd Fisher said:

The ing years have only served to convince me more firmly than ever that a grave miscarriage of justice occurred when Hauptmann was convicted and executed.¹ ⁵⁴

Endnotes

1 Note: Kevin Klein is the same person I’ve acknowledged in both V1 & V2 but misspelled his last name “Kline.” 2 Note: Some have never even been to the NJSP Archives. 3 Hoffman, Harold. “More things I forgot to tell.” Liberty Magazine. July 9, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 4 Phone Logs. Training School. March 1-4. March 4, 1932. 12:52 PM. Pages 234. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Correct spelling: Aloysius Whateley. Thanks to Amy “Amy35” for her help.) 5 Note: Munroe first mentioned in TDC Volume I, page 144. 6 Munroe, Fred. N. Deputy Chief, State Secret Service. Report. New Information on the Lindbergh Case. March 23, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Whatley = Whateley.) 7 Munroe, Fred. N. Deputy Chief, State Secret Service. Letter from Fred N. Munroe to Colonel Swartz. April 6, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 8 Note: Munroe also willingly shared information with Governor Hoffman during his re-investigation efforts. For more information on the “New Jersey State Secret Service” go to Mark Falzini’s blog “Archival Ramblings” (http://njspmuseum.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-jersey-state-secret-service.html). 9 See TDC Volume II, an example is located on page 74, footnote #249. 10 Rach, Siglinde. Emails to Author (with attachments). Covering the dates of August 14, 15, and 28, 2019. 11 See TDC Volume II, page 93.

12 Condon, John F. 1936. Jafsie Tells All! Jonathan Lee. Page 43. 13 See TDC Volume II, pages 250-64. 14 Reich, Alfred J. Statement. Made to Acting Lieutenant James J. Finn, M.O.D. October 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 15 Condon, Dr. John F. “Jafsie In The Cemetery.” Liberty Magazine. February 1, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 16 Condon, Dr. John F. “Now Jafsie Tells…” Liberty Magazine. March 21, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 17 Marrone, Joseph. Affidavit. Sworn to Sidney Bernstein in New York County, New York. May 31, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 18 Ibid. 19 Condon, John F. 1936. Jafsie Tells All! Jonathan Lee. Page 11. 20 Rach, Siglinde. Email to Author. February 23, 2019. 21 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 385. 22 Ibid. 23 “Hauptmann Link To Condon Sought.” The New York Times. March 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 24 See TDC Volume I. Pages 316 & 317. 25 Hoffman, Harold G., Mercer County Chief of Detectives. Testimony. In the Matter of Paul Wendel, Mercer County Grand Jury, April 2, 1936., page 36-7. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 26 Ibid. Page 38. 27 Fisher, Lloyd. Typed Observations. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State

Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 28 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of attached communication sent in by Robert B. Hance, Jr., Bank Teller of the Newtown Title and Trust Company, Newtown, Penna., stating that an attempt was made to a $20.00 Bill of the Lindbergh Ransom Money in that town. February 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 29 Fisher, Jim. The Lindbergh Case. Rutgers University Press. 1987. Page 202. 30 Ibid. 31 Cornel D. Plebani held the rank of “Trooper II” within the istration Section of the New Jersey State Police in 1982. Plebani first began his special assignment to reconstruct the Lindbergh files in 1976. 32 Fisher, Jim. The Lindbergh Case. Rutgers University Press. 1987. Page 447. Footnote #3. 33 Ibid. 34 Cahill, Richard T. 2014. Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-By-Step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. The Kent State University Press, pages 159. 35 Ibid. 36 Wallace, Jack B. Typed Notes. “Notes Concerning My Knowledge And Involvement In The Lindbergh Kidnapping.” Undated. (1981). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 37 Wallace, John. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Lindbergh Investigation Activities. September 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Report spans from September 10th thru September 22nd.) 38 Note: See TDC Volume II, pages 452-55 concerning Victor Schussler’s access to that garage. 39 Wallace, J. Detective Sergeant. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State

Police Report. Dismounted patrol at Fordham Road and 3rd Avenue “L,” Bronx, New York, for the purpose of locating a suspect who was ing the ransom money in the Lindbergh case. October 6, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 40 Hauptmann, Richard. Autobiography: Unedited & Uncorrected (Translated). The Story of My Life. Page 198. May 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 41 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Things that Hauptmann complained of and things which he insisted should indicate his innocence.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 42 See TDC Volume II. Pages 501-561. 43 Note: Source material that includes Fisch’s first name records it in many ways: “Isador,” “Isadore,” “Isidor,” “Isidore,” and on rare occasions the nickname “Izzy.” “Isador” is used the majority of the time, but Fisch spelled it “Isidor.” 44 Albrecht, A. H. Sgt., New Jersey State Police and Patterson, Claude Det., New Jersey State Police. City of New York Police Report. Investigation of John Chizacky, 43 Hudson St., Garfield, N.J. Re- Lindbergh investigation. September 23, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Although these men were NJSP this report is typed up on NYPD letterhead.) 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Albrecht, A. H. Sgt., New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of 1932 New Jersey Residents Hunting and Fishing License, #178062, issued to Richard Hauptmann at aic, N.J., October 10th, 1932; address given as 21 Pershing St., Garfield, New Jersey, re: Lindbergh Case. November 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

49 Ibid. 50 (As one example: He interviewed Johannes Jung on March 23, 1932.) 51 See TDC Volume II, page 578. 52 Codd, W. S. Investigator, New Jersey Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Letter from W. S. Codd to Harold G. Hoffman, Governor. Unsigned. March 11, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 53 Ibid. 54 “Lindberghs Plan Start Early This Morning On Altitude, Transcontinental Flight Here.” The New York Times. April 20, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 55 “Lindbergh Sets A Record From Coast of 14 ¾ Hours With Wife As Navigator; Flies 180 Miles An Hour At 14,000 Feet. The New York Times. April 21, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 56 “The Lindbergh Flight.” The Washington Post. April 22, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 57 “High Test.” Time Magazine. April 28, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 58 “Lindbergh Spends Day In Conference.” The New York Times. April 22, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 59 “Again Lindbergh Shows His Air Genius.” The New York Times. April 27, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 60 “Speed of Lindbergh Destroys Barograph.” Winona Republican-Herald. April 30, 1930. Winona State University Archives. 61 Public Broadcasting Service. Transcript. “Smithsonian World.” Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Page 3. February 15, 1984. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

62 Mosley, Leonard. 1976. Lindbergh: A Biography. Doubleday & Company. Page 151. 63 Larner, John William. New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles. Inspector’s Report. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. (Note: This absolutely rings true and sounds like something Lindbergh would have said in response.) 66 Berg, Scott A. 1998. Lindbergh. Berkley Books. Page 216. 67 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow. 1973. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Page 132. 68 Slingerland, Stanley M. Letter from Stanley M. Slingerland to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. July 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 69 Mandatory reading on this subject should include: Black, Edwin. 2003. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Expanded Edition. Thunder’s Mouth Press. 70 Gardner, Lloyd. 2012. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Pages 416-22. See also: Freidman, David M. 2007. The Immortalists: Charles Lindbergh, Dr. Alexis Carrel, and Their Daring Quest to Live Forever. Ecco., and Wallace, Max. 2003. The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich. St. Martin’s Press. 71 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow. 1973. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Page 135. 72 Ibid. (Note: “exactly” emphasized). 73 Berg, Scott A. 1998. Lindbergh. Berkley Books. Page 217. 74 Cummings, Marie, alias, Ella May Cummings. Statement. March 20, 1932. Made to Sergeant Carl Stein and Detective Hugh Strong, Newark Police

Department. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 75 Hawks, E. M. Statement. Taken by Asst. Attorney General Robert Peacock and Captain John J. Lamb. November 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Hawks sometimes spelled “Hawkes” in certain documentation.) 76 “Visit to Laboratory Here Inspired Lindbergh to Medical Research.” The New York Times. August 13, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 77 Birth Certificate. ed June 25, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 78 “Augustus or Dwight May Be Added, Friend of Family Reveals.” The Washington Post. June 24, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 79 “No Name Chosen for Lindbergh Baby.” The New York Times. July 2, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 80 “Lindbergh Baby Is Named For the Father, Charles A. Jr.” The New York Times. July 9, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 81 “Dr. Barbour Urges Birth Control Law.” The New York Times. August 4, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 82 Ibid. 83 Bird, Carol. “Will “Lindy,” Jr. Be an Eagle Like His Dad?” Salt Lake Telegram. Utah Digital Archives, J. Willard Marriott Library. 84 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow. 1973. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Page 140. 85 “Lindbergh Purchases Home Site Three Miles Outside Princeton.” Daily Princetonian. October 13, 1930. Larry DuPraz Digital Archives, Princeton University Library.

86 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Lindbergh Case re: checking up on the Hopewell Herald, a weekly publication, for the purpose of securing ads that appeared therein regarding farms for rent in that vicinity from September 23rd, 1930 to March 1st, 1932. October 20, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 87 Hunterdon County Deed Book. Volume 387, pages 190, 312, 319, 321, and 322. Mercer County Deed Book. Volume 679, p. 67. Office of the County Clerk, Mercer County Courthouse. 88 Sisk, T. H. DOI (FBI) et. al., DOI Report. Summary. NY File No. 62-3057, p. 62. February 16, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 89 Ibid. Page 346. 90 Waller, George. 1961. Kidnap: The Story of the Lindbergh Case. The Dial Press. Page 23. 91 Ibid. Pages 23-4. 92 Brant, John, and Renaud, Edith. 1932. True Story of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Kroy Wen Publishers, Inc. Page 12. 93 Berg, Scott A. 1998. Lindbergh. Berkley Books. Page 219. 94 See TDC Volume I, page 317. 95 Swayze, Ena. Interview (Handwritten Notes). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 96 Swayze, Ena. Interview. Interview with Mrs. Ena Swayze, wife of coroner Walter Swayze. (Typed). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 97 See TDC Volume I, page 317. 98 Jackson, J. H. New Jersey State Trooper. Official New Jersey State Police Phone Log. Phone Number 261. March 5, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

99 DeGaetano, N. Detective. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Attempting to locate a nursemaid alleged to have been employed by one Mr. Patten of Hopewell, N. J. September 1, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Munchek, Abraham. Letter from Abraham Munchek to Col. Chas A. Lindbergh. April 26, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Quoted as is. I’ve avoided using [sic] because it is distracting due to the many places it should be used in just this small quote.) 103 O’Brien, John, Chief Inspector, City of New York Police Department. Letter from John O’Brien to H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Esq. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 104 Ibid. 105 Hawks, E. M. Statement. Taken by Asst. Attorney General Robert Peacock and Captain John J. Lamb. November 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 106 Cummings, Marie, alias, Ella May Cummings. Statement. March 20, 1932. Made to Sergeant Carl Stein and Detective Hugh Strong, Newark Police Department. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Not only recovery from childbirth but from a breast abscess. See Hour of Gold Hour of Lead, page 137). 107 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow. 1973. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Page 138. 108 See TDC Volume I, page 94. 109 Ibid. Page 95. 110 Lindbergh, Anne Morrow. 1973. Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Page 140.

111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. Page 141. 113 Hawks, E. M. Statement. Taken by Asst. Attorney General Robert Peacock and Captain John J. Lamb. November 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 114 Van Ingen, Philip. Statement. November 21, 1934. Made to Robert Peacock, Asst. NJ. Attorney General. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 115 bookrefuge. Internet Post. “The Case against a Eugenics-Motivated Murder.” (2012). lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 116 “In Memoriam.” Pediatrics. Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 12 No. 3. September 1953. pediatrics.aappublications.org. 117 Van Ingen, Philip. Letter from Dr. Philip Van Ingen to Mrs. Morrow. May 4, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 118 Hoover, John Edgar, Director. Memorandum For Mr. Tamm. September 26, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 119 Van Ingen, Philip. Letter from Dr. Philip Van Ingen to Mrs. Morrow. May 4, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 120 Van Ingen, Philip MD. Statement (Handwritten). May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 121 See TDC Volume I. Pages 302-3. 122 Van Ingen, Philip. Statement. November 21, 1934. Made to Robert Peacock, Assistant Attorney General and Captain John J. Lamb. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 123 See TDC Volume I. Page 308. 124 Albrecht, A. H. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Investigation of letter written by Mrs. E. L. Hamilton. October 13,

1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 125 Ibid. 126 Leon, Samuel J. l. AND Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of letter from a Mrs. Enda S. Hamilton, 348 Bloomfield Avenue, Caldwell, N. J. who has a daughter Lola, Marriage name Mrs. Norman, living at 96 Engle Street, Englewood, N. J. October 28, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 127 Ibid. 128 See TDC Volume I. Pages 258-9. 129 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Col. New Jersey State Police. Bulletin. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 130 Parker, Ellis H., Burlington County Chief of Detectives. Letter from Ellis Parker to His Excellency, Harold G. Hoffman. December 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 131 Jackson, John H. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Report of activities while on detail at the Lindbergh Estate, re: investigation of Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby. March 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 132 Wolf, J. A. Corporal. AND Stinson, Archie. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of activities of buzzards flying in the vicinity of the Lindbergh Estate, conducted by Corporal Wolf and Trooper Archie Stinson, New Jersey State Police. March 20, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 133 Schwarzkopf, Col. H. Norman. Answers to Bulletin No 191. May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 134 Kubler, Louis E., Sgt. Identification Bureau. New Jersey State Police Report. Special Report. May 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

135 Christian, Thomas B. Pathologist. Report. Examination of Hair. Undated (May 16, 1932). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 136 Wilentz, David. Pre-Trial Preparation Document. Dr. Thomas B. Christian. Typed. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 137 Kubler, Louis E., Sgt. Identification Bureau. New Jersey State Police Report. Special Report. May 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 138 Fitzgerald, James. Detective, Jersey City Police Department. Statement. December 4, 1934. Made to Robert Peacock, Asst. New Jersey Attorney General. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 139 Anderson, John F., M.D., Director, E. R. Squibb & Sons Biological Laboratories. Letter from John F. Anderson to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. May 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. (Note: See Report V attached to this letter). 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 144 Peterson, Lieut. V. M. New Jersey State Police, Forensic Science Bureau. Interoffice Communication. Lieut. V. M. Peterson to Colonel C. L. Pagano. May 9, 1977. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 145 Krogman, Wilton Marion, Ph. D., LL. D., D. Sc. Physical Anthropologist. Director of Research, Cleft Palate Clinic. Report. Examination of Bones Case No. 277311932. Undated (June 1977). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 146 Ibid. 147 Krogman, Wilton M. Ph. D. Letter from Wilton M. Krogman to Major L. F.

Umholtz, Supervisor. June 14, 1977. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 148 Bass, William M. Professor and Head State Forensic Anthropologist, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology. Letter from Bill Blass to Lt. Cornell Plebani. April 9, 1984. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 149 Ibid. 150 Lane, Alan T., Sr. Forensic Chemist. Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of State Police. Laboratory Report. Lindbergh Kidnap/Murder. Laboratory No. L77311932. May 26, 1977. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 151 Peterson, Vincent M. Lt., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Examination of Evidence Re: L77311932. March 17, 1978. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 152 Newman, Edwin (Narrator). Selinger, Janice (Writer & Producer). Reliving the Lindbergh Case. 1989. Public Broadcasting System (PBS), New Jersey Network Production. (Thanks to Joe Czulinski for bringing this source to my attention). 153 Peterson, Vincent M. Lt., New Jersey State Police. Forensic Science Bureau Report. Lindbergh Evidence Review. Phase I (April – June 1977). L77311932. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 154 Schwarzkopf, Col. H. Norman. Answers to Bulletin No 191. May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 155 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, USBOI (FBI). Memorandum For The Director. Unknown Subjects Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. October 27, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 156 Ingram, John C. Telegram. Postal Telegraph from John C. Ingram to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. May 19, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Ingram says Detective “Fitzpatrick” (Fitzgerald) was among this group. He was usually with Det. Coar, l. Leon, and Sgt. Zapolsky).

157 Map. Hand Drawn Sketch. Map of Grave-Site Area Extending South Along Princeton Hopewell Road. Undated. (May 1932). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 158 Carmody, Thomas B. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Trooper Thomas B. Carmody #373, of the Lambertville Station, re: finding parts of a New York Telegram newspaper near scene at where body of Lindbergh baby was found. May 13, 1932. 159 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper AND DeGaetano, N. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Finding a quantity of baby’s clothing, diapers and pads while ing residents in the vicinity of the spot where the body of the Lindbergh child was found. May 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 160 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Finding a quantity of baby’s clothes, diapers and pads in the vicinity of the spot where the body of the Lindbergh child was found, as per report # 568 dated May 16, 1932. August 9, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 161 Holaday, H. A., E. R. Squibb Report. Report of examination of Articles received in his office by H. A. Holaday from Detective Bornmann on October 5, 1932. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 162 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Analysis of partly filled package of Herbert Tarrington cigarettes, three pieces of candy and a number of infants under garments. October 5, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 163 Holaday, H. A., E. R. Squibb Report. Report of analysis for poison of articles received in his office by H. A. Holaday from Detective Bornmann at 1:05 P. M. on October 5, 1932. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 164 Anderson, John F., M.D., Director, E. R. Squibb & Sons Biological Laboratories. Letter from John F. Anderson to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 21, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

165 Holaday, H. A., E. R. Squibb Report. Report of analysis for poison of articles received in his office by H. A. Holaday from Detective Bornmann at 1:05 P. M. on October 5, 1932. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 166 See TDC Volume I, page 311. 167 Mitchell, Chas. Report. Report on Unknown Baby. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid. 171 Carney, J. F. Special Agent, United States Bureau of Investigation. Memorandum for Special Agent In Charge T. F. Cullen. Re: GASTON B. MEANS; Norman T. Whitaker Larceny in the District of Columbia of $100,000.00 from Mrs. Evalyn Walsh McLean. April 28, 1933, National Archives at College Park Maryland. (Note: The actual report is not at the NJSP Archives but can be found referenced in many other reports. One such source is the FBI Summary which relied on Agent Carney’s investigation. It was during his investigation that Dr. Mitchell showed the Agent the actual report which Carney recorded as written.) 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 174 Mitchell, Charles H., MD. Testimony. United States of America vs. Ellis Parker Sr., et al., United States District Court District of New Jersey. Page 4056, June 4, 1937. The National Archives at New York City. 175 Allen, Wm. Statement. Made to Inspector Harry W. Walsh Jersey City Police Dept. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 176 Wolfe, Harry H. Officer. Statement. Made to l. S. J. Leon, N.J. State Police. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives 177 Williamson, Chas. E. Deputy Chief of Police. Statement. Made to l. S. J. Leon N.J. State Police. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 178 See TDC Volume I, pages 217-8, 223. 179 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police AND Coar, Robert, Jersey City Police Department. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of George Schneck of Woodcliff, N. J., who came to the gate at the end of the Lindbergh lane with a “Pendel System” and claimed that he could name the kidnapers of the Lindbergh baby. May 21, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 180 Malone, L. F. Special Agent. Division of Investigation. United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. October 5, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 181 Rodweiller, Leo. Lt. Princeton Police Department. Notes. Chas. Schippell. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 182 DeGaetano, N. Detective. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Information obtained from Lieutenant Leo Rodweiller of the Princeton Police Department. April 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 183 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 34. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Wilson misspells “Schippell” as “Schopfel.”) 184 Shapple, Charles. Statement. Made to Mr. John McNally, Mr. Ray Sanderson, Mrs. Shapple, and Charles Shapple. December 14, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Name misspelled). 185 Johnson, Squire and Dawes, George. Letter from Squire Johnson and George Dawes to Governor Harold G. Hoffman. January 20, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

186 Ibid. 187 Meade, Leo. Private Investigator. Meade Detective Agency. Report. Information received from Mr. Martin Sheppard, 356 McClellan Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey. March 21, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 188 Ibid. 189 Maddock, A. E. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. Memorandum. Memo For Lt. Keaton. October 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 190 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing of Mr. John Immordino, 1245 Princeton, Ave. Trenton, N. J. May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 191 Ibid. 192 Parker, Ellis H. Burlington County Chief of Detectives. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Harold G. Hoffman. January 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 193 Ibid. 194 Ibid. 195 Wolf, J. A. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Training of dogs in vicinity of where Lindbergh baby was found. April 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 196 Ibid. 197 Viedt, Herman Jr. Statement. Made to Det. N. DeGaetano and Trooper J. A. Wolf of the New Jersey State Police. October 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 198 Ibid.

199 Ibid. 200 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper AND DeGaetano, N. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing of residents within a onemile radius of the spot where the body of the Lindbergh child was found. May 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 201 Some police and locals referred to Hopewell-Princeton Road as “Mount Rose Road” (among other names). Unfortunately, the same roads throughout the area were often referred to by several different names and this can be a nightmare for any researcher trying to figure out which road is which. 202 Lambertson, H. Tpr. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Lindbergh case. May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 203 Wolf, J. A. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Re. Unknown man seen carrying a bag near where body of Lindbergh was found. March 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 204 Ibid. 205 See TDC Volume II, page 507. 206 Schenck, Garrett. Statement. May 13, 1936. Made to William S. Lutz, Executive Office. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 207 Moffatt, W. T. Sergeant. Newark Police Department AND Horn, Wm. Corporal. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview of Roger Batchelder, 247 West 43rd Street, New York City (Representative of the American Newspaper Alliance). May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 208 Ibid. 209 “She Worked in Murder Thicket.” Evening Graphic. May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

210 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper AND DeGaetano, N. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing of residents within a onemile radius of the spot where the body of the Lindbergh child was found. May 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 211 Moffatt, W. T. Sergeant. Newark Police Department AND Horn, Wm. Corporal. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview of Roger Batchelder, 247 West 43rd Street, New York City (Representative of the American Newspaper Alliance). May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 212 See TDC Volume I, page 29. 213 See TDC Volume II, pages 10-11. 214 Hoffman, Harold, Governor. Letter from Harold Hoffman to Lloyd Fisher. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 215 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd to Honorable Governor Harold G. Hoffman. April 7, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 216 See TDC Volume II, pages 297-300. 217 Collins, John A. Letter from John A. Collins to Honorable Harold G. Hoffman. April 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 218 Ibid. 219 Hoffman, Harold, Governor. Letter from Harold Hoffman to Mr. Collins. April 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 220 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Gentlemen. June 8, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 221 Peugh, K. L. Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corp. Memo from K. L. Peugh to R. A Page. June 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

222 Ibid. 223 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. New Jersey State Police AND DeGaetano N. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in an attempt to identify a burlap bag found near the scene of the Lindbergh baby’s grave. July 22, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 224 Mitchell, Eliot W. President. Consolidated Feed & Grain Company. Letter from Eliot W. Mitchell to Hon. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. July 20, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 225 Frost, W. P. Manager. Eastern States Milling Corporation. Letter from W. P. Frost to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. July 26, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 226 Ibid. 227 Lockwood, Gustave. Testimony. United States of America vs. Ellis Parker Sr., et al. United States District Court District of New Jersey. May 13, 1937, pages 1527 & 1567. The National Archives at New York City. (Note: As a result, the State ed an Act giving Motor Vehicle Inspectors full police powers in 1937.) 228 “Cunning Little Rascal.” Time Magazine. November 30, 1931. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 229 Ibid. 230 Allen, C. B. “Proved False, Myth Persists About The Boy.” York WorldTelegram. March 3, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 231 “Will Rodgers Recalls a Golden-Haired Baby Toddling About in the Lindbergh Nursery.” The New York Times. March 3, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 232 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Facts concerning Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh. February 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

233 Lookingbill, Lowella. Letter from Lowella Lookingbill to Honorable Harold G. Hoffman. December 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 234 “Justice.” Letter from “Justice” to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 5, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 235 Kauth, B. M., M. D. Letter from Dr. B. M. Kauth to Governor Hoffman. January 13, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 236 Turner, Gladys L. Letter from Gladys L. Turner to Governor Harold Hoffman. January 19, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 237 McGeeney, P. S. Letter from P. S. McGeeney to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 238 Taggart, Richard J. Letter from Richard J. Taggart to My dear Governor. February 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 239 Bacon, Florence R. Letter from Florence Bacon to Gov. Hoffman. August 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 240 Lewis, William. Detective Bureau. New Jersey State Police. Letter from Detective William Lewis to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. March 13, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 241 Ibid. 242 Ibid. 243 Jones, Wayne D. 1997. Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame. Vantage Press. Pages 1117-18.

244 Ibid. Page 1118. 245 Allen, C. B. “Proved False, Myth Persists About The Boy.” York WorldTelegram. March 3, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 246 Connelley, E. J. Special Agent in Charge. Bureau of Investigation. Letter from E. J. Connelley to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. March 28, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 247 “Lindy’s Cousin Calls Kidnaping An Inside Job.” Chicago Tribune. March 7, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 248 “Dodge Woman Thinks Lindy Baby Is Living.” Unknown Newspaper. Undated (January 10, 1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 249 Smolka, Charles T. Letter from Charles T. Smolka to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 250 Ibid. 251 Ibid. 252 Lutz, William S. Executive Department. Letter from William S. Lutz to Mr. Charles T. Smolka. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 253 Smolka, Charles T. Letter from Charles T. Smolka to Mr. William S. Lutz. February 8, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 254 Ibid. Postscript. 255 Holwerda, David. Telephone Interview with Author. April 2, 2019. 256 Ibid.

257 Ibid. 258 Journal Article. “Miscellany.” The New England Journal of Medicine. July 16, 1931. 205:152. www.nejm.org. 259 Trask, Burton W., M.D. Letter from Burton W. Trask to Chief. October 22, 1985. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 260 Ibid. 261 Parker, Ellis H. Burlington County Chief of Detectives. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Harold G. Hoffman. January 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 262 Dutch, Andrew K. Memorandum. Memo: Governor. February 17, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 263 Pagel, Liz. Internet Post. Date Unknown (2003?). Author’s Possession. 264 Bingham, Pamela. Internet Work. “The Bag And The Body.” April 23, 2008. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 265 Purdy, Robert “Rab.” Internet Work. “The Bone in the Bag.” March 5, 2006. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 266 Sisk, T. H. DOI (FBI) et. al., DOI Report. Summary. NY File No. 62-3057, p. 66. February 16, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 267 McDaniel, Wayne. Email to Author. April 1, 2019. 268 Dolbeer, Richard A.; Holler, Nicholas R.; and Hawthorne, Donald W., “Identification and Assessment of Wildlife Damage: an Overview” 1994. The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 269 See TDC Volume I, page 301. 270 Ibid. 271 Hicks, Robt. W. Lieut. Report. This Data Was Prepared By Lieut. Robt W.

Hicks, M.S. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 272 “Medical Testimony at Hauptmann Trial Scored.” Paper Unknown (Possibly Jersey Herald). Undated (1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 273 “Hauptmann Jury Scored By Reilly.” The New York Times. February 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 274 Griebl, I. T. Letter from Dr. I. T. Griebl to Governor Harold Hoffman. January 12, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Since this letter was referenced in V1, I’ve read some criticism of this source because Dr. Griebl, only months after writing this letter, fled to because he was suspected by Special Agent Turrou as being a Nazi Spy. I don’t see what that has to do with his level of expertise on this matter, so I have no problem using it again here.) 275 Conklin, Bill. Memorandum. Memorandum To The Governor. Undated (January 1938). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 276 Hicks, Robt. W. Criminologist. Letter from Rob’t W. Hicks to Honorable Harold G. Hoffman. January 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 277 Anderson, Gail S. Professor. Director, Undergraduate Programmes, School of Criminology. Co-Director, Centre for Forensic Research. Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Entomology. Simon Fraser University. Email to Author. June 8, 2010. 278 Clarke, George. City Editor, The Daily Mirror. Manuscript. Undated. (1938?) Page 11. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 279 Bornmann, L. J. Trooper AND DeGaetano, N. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Bertha M. Burke, DeHart St., Hopewell, N. J. May 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 280 Schippell, Charles. Statement. Made to Tpr. Lewis J. Bornmann. May 17,

1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 281 Sullivan, George. Tpr. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr. from his home on Sourland Mt. March 11, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 282 Ibid. 283 Schippell, Charles. Statement. Made to Tpr. Lewis J. Bornmann. May 17, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 284 Bornmann, L. J. Detective. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of William Fenton, Rocktown, N.J. May 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 285 Ibid. 286 Schippell, Charles. Statement. Made to Tpr. Lewis J. Bornmann. May 17, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 287 Ibid. 288 Ibid. 289 (Note: Report misspells Edmund’s name as “Edward.”) 290 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police AND Coar, Robert, Jersey City Police Department. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Edward DeLong, New York Sun, and George Daws, World Telegram, newspaper reporters at the main gate of the Lindbergh Estate. May 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 291 Leon, Samuel J. l. NJSP AND Horn, William F. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. The showing to Dr. Condon photograph which was found in the shack of Charles Schippell, Hopewell, N. J. October 18, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 292 DeGaetano, N. Detective. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Taking Troopers to the Schippell shack on the Mount Rose Road,

Hopewell Township near Hopewell, N. J. December 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 293 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation by Lieut. Arthur T. Keaten concerning the Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. of Hopewell, N. J. on the night of March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8-00 P. M. and 10-00 P. M. September 22, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Charles Maran). 294 New Jersey State Police Report. Untitled. Unsigned. October 3 (1932). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Located in Schwarzkopf File). 295 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation by Lieut. Arthur T. Keaten concerning the Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. of Hopewell, N. J. on the night of March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8-00 P. M. and 10-00 P. M. October 11, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 296 Ibid. 297 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of one Joe Cerardi and Charles Maran concerning the kidnaping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh. October 18, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 298 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation by Lieut. Arthur T. Keaten concerning the kidnaping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. of Hopewell, N. J. on the night of March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8-00 P. M. and 10-00 P. M. October 19, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 299 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation by Lieut. Arthur T. Keaten concerning the kidnaping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. of Hopewell, N. J. on the night of March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8-00 P. M. and 10-00 P. M. November 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 300 Ibid.

301 Ibid. 302 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Lindbergh Kidnaping and Murder Case regarding Enrico Cerardi Alias Joe Cerardi alias Frank Jerome, and Charles Maran of 585 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. November 23, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 303 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Pictures taken of Enrico Cerardi and Charles Maran by Sgt. L. E. Kubler on December 15, 1932. December 29, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: It should be recalled that Lindbergh only saw the Look-Out at Saint Raymond’s.) 304 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with a Mr. and Mrs. George A. Crippen, 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. January 9, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 305 Ibid. 306 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Leon, Samuel l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Mr. and Mrs. George A. Crippen at their home at 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. February 14, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 307 Ibid. 308 Ibid. 309 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Mr. and Mrs. George A. Crippen of 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, regarding Enrico Cerardi. March 14, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 310 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Mrs. George A. Crippen in reference to one Enrico Cerardi of 585 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. April 25, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

311 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Mrs. George A. Crippen of 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. in response to her telephone call to Lieutenant Keaten in reference to one Enrico Cerardi. May 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Possible bogus claim of a new job and a sudden “legitimate” large amount of cash on this date as to not arouse any suspicion). 312 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Mr. and Mrs. George A. Crippen of 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. July 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 313 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Questioning Joseph Cerardi, 585 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, re Lindbergh Case. August 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 314 Ibid. 315 Ibid. 316 Snook, R. A. Lieut., Supervisor. State Bureau of Identification. Department of State Police Report. Examination of handwriting C. Maran. August 22, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 317 Maran, Charles. Statement. August 23, 1933. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 318 Ibid. 319 Ibid. 320 Ibid. 321 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Mrs. George A. Crippen, 605 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N. J. in reference to her telephone call this A. M., re Lindbergh Case. January 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 322 Ibid.

323 Ibid. 324 “Woman A Captive 2 Years, Police Say.” The New York Times. January 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 325 Ibid. 326 “Cerardi Wins Freedom.” The New York Times. March 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 327 Rue, Larry. “Strange Three Who Lived Near Lindbergh.” The Washington Herald. March 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Special Thanks to Michael Beggs for assisting me with the Rue collection). 328 Ibid. 329 Woolf, Harold. “The Lone Eagle Vs. The Lone Wolf.” Unpublished Manuscript. Part I. Undated (1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 330 Ibid. 331 Rue, Larry. “Strange Three Who Lived Near Lindbergh.” The Washington Herald. March 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 332 Ibid. 333 Ibid. 334 Souther, Clara Danielson. Letter from Clara Danielson Souther to Dr. Condon. February 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 335 Ibid. 336 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 35. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning

Center Archives. 337 Ibid. 338 Sisk, T. H. DOI (FBI) et. al., DOI Report. Summary. NY File No. 62-3057, p. 322. February 16, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 339 See TDC Volume I, page 104. (Note: Some sources say July 27th, and others July 29th) 340 Seykora, J. E. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. August 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 341 Genau, J. A. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Bruno Richard Hauptmann with aliases Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. October 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 342 Snook, R. A. Capt., Supervisor. State Bureau of Identification. Department of State Police Report. Check of fingerprints of Carmielo Cerardi. August 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 343 Hoffman, Harold, Governor. Letter from Harold Hoffman to Mr. Walter N. Bryant. July 30, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 344 Patterson, C. Tpr. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of a Buick Brougham car stolen from Lakewood, N. J. which may be connected with Lindbergh case. March 11, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 345 Trenton NJ to Freehold NJ. Teletype. Stolen Car Re: GB 1156. Added Information. March 2, 1932 (Note: Incorrectly dated 2-2-32 on sheet). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 346 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police AND Dunn, T. Detective. Jersey City Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of abandoned car in New York City by Detective T. Dunn, Jersey City Police and Sergeant

Haussling, New Jersey State Police. March 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 347 Ibid. 348 Ibid. 349 Ritchie, T. J. Corporal, NJ State Police AND McCormick, J. J. Trooper, New Jersey State Police AND Carr, Frank Detective, Newark Police Dept. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Auto Stolen from Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N. J. and Pair of Khaki Tros found in same. March 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 350 Newark NJ to Trenton NJ. Teletype. Re Trenton 173. Teletype from Manhattan Telegraph Bureau NYC Police to Major Chas H. Schoeffel. March 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 351 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police AND Dunn, T. Detective. Jersey City Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of abandoned car in New York City by Detective T. Dunn, Jersey City Police and Sergeant Haussling, New Jersey State Police. March 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 352 Newark NJ to Trenton NJ. Teletype. Re GB 1156. Teletype from Det. Gannett Auto Sqd. NY City Police to Lakewood NJ Police. March 9, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 353 Ritchie, T. J. Corporal, NJ State Police AND McCormick, J. J. Trooper, New Jersey State Police AND Carr, Frank Detective, Newark Police Dept. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Auto Stolen from Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N. J. and Pair of Khaki Tros found in same. March 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 354 Patterson, C. Tpr. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of a Buick Brougham car stolen from Lakewood, N. J. which may be connected with Lindbergh case. March 11, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 355 Ritchie, T. J. Corporal, NJ State Police AND McCormick, J. J. Trooper, New Jersey State Police AND Carr, Frank Detective, Newark Police Dept. New

Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Auto Stolen from Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N. J. and Pair of Khaki Tros found in same. March 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 356 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police AND Dunn, T. Detective. Jersey City Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of abandoned car in New York City by Detective T. Dunn, Jersey City Police and Sergeant Haussling, New Jersey State Police. March 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 357 Ibid. 358 Ritchie, T. J. Corporal, NJ State Police AND Carr, Frank Detective, Newark Police Dept. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Map found in abandoned stolen Buick Sedan, Property of Benjamin Schindler, of Lakewood, N. J. Map found in this car with the ment of Weinmann’s Garage, Trenton, N. J. March 16, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 359 Note: Her name is spelled several different ways throughout the various source material where she and her husband are mentioned. Sometimes this occurs because the police would misspell, and other times because the person themselves used different spellings or had an alias (e.g. Ann/Anna/Anne and Rehm/Rohm). 360 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police AND Dunn, T. Detective. Jersey City Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of abandoned car in New York City by Detective T. Dunn, Jersey City Police and Sergeant Haussling, New Jersey State Police. March 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 361 Ibid. 362 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. New Jersey State Police AND DeGaetano N. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of auto stolen from Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N. J. July 15, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 363 Ibid.

364 Snook, R. A. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Summary of investigation of the deposit of Lindbergh bills in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City on May 1, 1933. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 365 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of J. J. Faulkner, 537 West 149th Street, New York City. May 16, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 366 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police AND Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of J. J. Faulkner, 537 West 149th Street, New York City re: previous report on same under date of May 22nd, 1933 by l. W. F. Horn. May 25, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 367 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Tulip Cup Corp. July 3, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 368 Farrell, J. J. Manager Cup Division, Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation. Letter from J. J. Farrell to Department of State Police. July 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 369 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police AND Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation re interview with Ben Schindler, Sr. and Ben Schindler, Jr., at Hotel Imperial, 31 Street and Broadway, re Teletype Broadcast, “Added Information-Stolen Car,” dated February [March] 2, 1932, from Lakewood Police, re Lindbergh case. July 13, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 370 DeGaetano, N. Detective. N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Buick Brougham, formerly owned by Ben Schindler of Imperial Hotel, New York City, N.J. September 1st, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 371 Gardiner, Wm. T. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Requested by Lieut. Keaten to check on G. B. 2495 (1932), concerning a Buick Sedan supposedly to have been stolen from New York City on February 27, 1932. Same bore registration ON-6009 NJ, serial #1707010 and motor #1766206 and was owned by Abraham Hafif, R. D. #1 Locust Street, Lakewood,

N.J. May 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 372 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Buick Sedan, Stolen from Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N. J. April 18, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 373 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation re: present activities of Jack Rehm, 192 Sedgewick Ave., Yonkers, N. Y. May 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 374 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police AND Dunn, T. Detective. Jersey City Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of abandoned car in New York City by Detective T. Dunn, Jersey City Police and Sergeant Haussling, New Jersey State Police. March 14, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This source merely implies Boyle turned it over but later sources confirm it). 375 Haussling, E. A. Sergeant. N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Patrolman William Boyle, 531 West 211th Street, New York City, re Blanket found in abandoned Schindler Car. July 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 376 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of brown plaid blanket with fringe that is reported missing. July 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 377 Ibid. 378 Ibid. 379 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. July 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 380 Ibid. 381 Ibid.

382 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. July 25, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 383 Ibid. 384 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation on missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. July 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 385 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. July 31, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 386 Ibid. 387 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. August 2, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 388 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Securing blanket located at the Morrow Estate, supposedly being the blanket found in the abandoned Buick Brougham the property of Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N J. August 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 389 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Possible identification of blanket procured from the Morrow home. August 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 390 Ibid. 391 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of missing brown plaid blanket with fringe. August 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 392 , E. W., Director, Philadelphia Textile School. Letter from E. W.

to Lieut. L. J. Bornmann. July 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 393 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of source of manufacture of blanket found in stolen car found abandoned in New York City on March 4, 1932, property of Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N.J. (See report #152). July 14, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 394 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of source of manufacture of blanket found in stolen car found abandoned in New York City on March 4, 1932, property of Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N.J. (See report #152). November 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 395 Ibid. 396 Ibid. 397 Steve, Glen S. Secretary, St. Mary’s Woolen Manufacturing Company. Letter from Glen S. Steve to Mr. Lewis J. Bornman. November 9, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 398 Keaten, A. T. Lieut, N.J.S.P. AND Haussling, E. A. Sgt. N.J.S.P. New Jersey State Police Report. Attempt to trace blanket found in abandoned car, the property of Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N.J., re Lindbergh Case. November 16, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 399 Ibid. 400 Ibid. 401 Leon, S. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report received at Morristown Headquarters from Lieutenant Dunn at the Training School requesting fingerprint man and detectives to report to the Lindbergh Home at Hopewell as Colonel Lindbergh’s baby had been kidnaped. March 1, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Leon was not a Corporal at the time of this investigation). 402 Ibid.

403 Ibid. 404 Keaten, A. T. Lieut, N.J.S.P. AND Haussling, E. A. Sgt. N.J.S.P. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued attempt to trace blanket found in abandoned car the property of Benjamin Schindler, Lakewood, N.J., re Lindbergh Case. November 28, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 405 Horn, William F. Corp. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Investigation concerning a blanket, alleged to have some connection with the Lindbergh Case. December 16, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 406 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation re: blanket found in abandoned Buick Sedan, the property of Benjamin Schindler, re: Lindbergh case. March 26, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 407 Bornmann, L. J. Detective New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation re: blanket found in abandoned Buick Sedan, the property of Benjamin Schindler, re: Lindbergh case. March 27, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 408 Turrou, L. G., Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). USBOI Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. August 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 409 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police AND Coar, Robert, Jersey City Police Department. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of telephone calls (Toll) made from the Morrow Home by the servants previous to the kidnaping of the Lindbergh Baby. July 5, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 410 Ibid. 411 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Toll Calls for Englewood 3-7646, 3-0255, 3-1982. September 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

412 Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning Frank Seiler, 807 Avenue “H”, Brooklyn, N. Y. re Lindbergh Case. October 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 413 Ibid. 414 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the following names which were taken from the Toll Calls of Telephone on the Morrow Estate at Englewood and the home phone of Arthur Springer, re Lindbergh Case. October 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 415 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the following name which were taken from the Toll Calls made from the phones located on the Morrow Estate at Englewood, N. J., re Lindbergh Case. October 19, 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 416 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Frank Seiler who is listed in the 1933 New York City Residential Directory as living at 537 West 149th Street, Apartment 33, re Lindbergh Case. October 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 417 Ibid. 418 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Frank Seiler, 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. October 26, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 419 Ibid. 420 Junge, Johann. Statement. March 9, 1932. Made to Sgt. McGrath, Dets. Schiable and Strong. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 421 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Frank Seiler, 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re

Lindbergh Case. October 26, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 422 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to Frank Seiler who is listed in the 1933 Residential Directory of New York City as living at 537 West 149th Street, Apartment 33, re Lindbergh Case. October 30, 1933 New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 423 Ibid. 424 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to Frank Seiler, 40 Kansas Street, Hackensack, N. J., re Lindbergh Case. November 1, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 425 Eacret, V. A. Manager, R. L. Polk & Co., Inc. Letter from V. A. Eacret to Mr. C. Paterson. November 3, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 426 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continuation of investigation of Frank Seiler, 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. November 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 427 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Frank Seiler who is listed in the 1933-34 Directory as living at 537 West 149th Street, Apartment 33, referring to report by undersigned dated October 20th, 1933, stating that further inquiries would be made by Mail carrier at the Plymouth Apartments with reference to the above subject. November 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 428 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continuation of investigation of Frank Seiler, 40 Kansas Street, Hackensack, N. J., which name appeared in the New York City Directory at 537 West 149th Street, re report by the undersigned under date of October 19th & 20th, 1933. November 14, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 429 Ibid.

430 Bremer, Arthur E. Letter from Arthur E. Bremer to Sergeant Andrew Zapolsky. December 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 431 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Leon, Samuel l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. The showing of the attached photograph of Frank Seiler, Kansas Street Hackensack, N. J. to Dr. John F. Condon for identification, re Lindbergh Case. December 21, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 432 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continuation of investigation of Frank Seiler, 40 Kansas Street, Hackensack, N. J., which name is listed in the 1933 New York City Directory at 537 West 149th Street, and which name appeared on toll Calls coming from the Morrow Estate at Englewood, N. J. to 807 Avenue “H”, Brooklyn, N. Y., re report by the undersigned under date of November 20th, 1933. January 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 433 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Frank Seiler, 40 Kansas Street, Hackensack, N. J., re Lindbergh Case. February 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 434 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Check of of Johanna J. Faulkner, 8508 – 107th Ave., Ozone Park, N.Y.C. referred to in letter of Elmer W. Bogert Conservator of the Ozone Park National Bank of N.Y. to the N.Y. State Bankers Association, 33 Liberty St., N.Y.C. as of May 25th, 1933. February 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 435 Note: $2990 was found but $10 was later determined to have been deposited from a different source. 436 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 120. 437 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For Director. Unknown Subjects Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. June 29, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland.

438 Giessler, Carl Oswin AND Faulkner, Jane Emily. Affidavit for License to Marry. State of New York. Subscribed and Sworn July 10, 1921. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Lists marriage date as “Feb. 17th, 1921). 439 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to one Carl Oswin Giessler. May 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 440 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of one J. J. Faulkner of 537 West 149th Street in connection with the depositing of $2990. of the Lindbergh Ransom money at the Federal Reserve Bank on May 1st, 1933. May 25, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 441 Ibid. 442 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to one Carl Oswin Giessler. May 26, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 443 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of one Carl Oswin Giessler in connection with the Lindbergh Case. May 31, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 444 Memorandum. The following information was obtained from Dunn and Bradstreet, Merchantile Agency, regarding the Max Schling Incorporated, Florists, and Max Seedmen Schling Incorporated. Unsigned (E. J. Hill, Special Agent, Treasury Department) Undated (May 1933). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: See attachment to Memo). 445 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 20. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 446 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Memorandum. May 29, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

447 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to a $10.00 Gold Certificate of the Lindbergh Ransom money which was found at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. June 2, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 448 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 21. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 449 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation regarding Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates, in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 8, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 450 Hill, Edward A., Special Agent AND Rosenthal, Aaron S., Revenue Agent, Treasury Department. Confidential Memorandum. June 9, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 451 Ibid. 452 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Memorandum. SI 6336M. Memo. June 12, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 453 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Memorandum. SI-6336-M. June 13, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 454 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Lindbergh Case; regarding one Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates. June 15, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 455 Leon, Samuel l. New Jersey State Police AND Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. The showing of the attached photograph of William Krippendorf to Dr. John F. Condon for Identification. June 22, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

456 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Lindbergh Case; regarding one Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates. June 15, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 457 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Co-operation with Capt. Oliver of the New York City Police at White Plains, N. Y. June 15, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 458 Leon, Samuel l. AND Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation research of the Hotel Pines , Lakewood, New Jersey, for certain names mentioned below, re: Lindbergh Case. June 19, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 459 Haussling, E. A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation at the Princeton Nurseries, Princeton, N. J. re Henry C. Leipold. June 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 460 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Attempting to interview Joseph Perrone, 2840 Randall Avenue, Throggs Neck, Bronx, New York, re Lindbergh Case. August 22, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 461 Scaduto, Anthony. 1976. Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Page 307. (Note: I’ve never located Scaduto’s source, but I have no doubt it does exist. There are several other reports written by Special Agent Seery conducted along similar lines around this time that I have located.) 462 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and his associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 26, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 463 Ibid. 464 Leslie, H. C. Special Agent. Division of Investigation. (Copy of Department

of Justice Report). July 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 465 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 21. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 466 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and Associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 30, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 467 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 30, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Despite efforts through a lengthy investigation, it appears that Boushey was never located). 468 Sisk, T. H. DOI (FBI) et. al., DOI Report. Summary. NY File No. 62-3057, p. 271. February 16, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 469 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 30, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 470 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 22. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 471 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and Associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. July 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 472 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and Associates; in connection with the Lindbergh Case. July 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police

Museum and Learning Center Archives. 473 Osborn, Albert D. Report. Report Of Examination Of Writing On Federal Reserve Bank Deposit Slip. July 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 474 Note to researchers: “Leipold” is sometimes misspelled as “Liepold” in many sources. 475 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re questioning Henry C. Leipold in connection with the kidnapping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 476 Ibid. 477 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 22. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 478 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Carl Oswin Giessler in reference to his son-in-law Henry C. Leipold, re Lindbergh Case. August 21, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 479 Ibid. 480 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Mr. and Mrs. Carl Oswin Giessler and Phyllis Leipold at Mr. Giessler’s Attorney’s Office, 10 East 40th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. August 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 481 Ibid. 482 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation regarding Henry C. Leipold, re Lindbergh Case. September 20, 1933. (Note: Rough Draft) New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

483 Leon, Samuel J. l. AND Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. The showing of this Photograph of Henry C. Leipold, who is under investigation in the Lindbergh Case, to Dr. John F. Condon for identification. August 29, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: The FBI Summary on page 259 claimed Condon “was not asked to view” either Leipold or Giessler because he was “kept in ignorance of this angle.” This demonstrates, yet again, how the FBI were sometimes kept in the dark and why this Summary must be read with this fact in mind.) 484 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Obtaining letters of the late Henry C. Leipold, which were written to him in German, from his Attorney Lester B. Nelson, 10 East 40th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. September 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 485 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. Receipt. Received of Lester B. Nelson. September 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 486 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Returning the letters written in German, to the late Henry C. Leipold, to his attorney, Mr. Lester B. Nelson, 10 East 40th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. September 15, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 487 Leipold, H. Letter to Mr. Professor Nicolay Michailow from H. Leipold. (Translated Copy) April 24, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 488 Michailow, Nic. Court Painter of the King of Bulgaria. (Kurfeurstebdamm 202 Berlin, ). Letter from Nic Michailow to Mr. Leipold. (Translated Copy) May 1, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 489 Ibid. 490 Michailow, Nic. Court Painter of the King of Bulgaria. (Kurfeursteb Damm 202 Berlin, ). Letter from Nic Michailow to Mr. Leipold. (Translated Copy) May 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives. 491 Ibid. 492 Michailow, Nikola. Telegram from Michailow to Leipold. (Translated Copy) May 18, (1932). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 493 Michailow, Nic. (Schemlzers Hotel Bad Harzburg, ). Letter from Nic Michailow to Mr. Leipold. (Translated Copy) May 23, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 494 Unsigned Copy. Muenchen. (Translated Copy) May 17, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 495 Michailow, Nic. Court Painter of the King of Bulgaria. Letter from Nic Michailow to Mr. Leipold. (Translated Copy) May 24, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 496 Becker, Fritz, Architect Professor, State Art Academy of Duesseldorf, . Letter from Fr. Becker to Mr. Henry C. Leipold. (Translated Copy) December 7, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 497 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to one Henry C. Leipold, 70 Trenton Avenue, White Plains, N. Y. who committed suicide on August 20, 1933, re Lindbergh Case. October 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 498 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation with reference to Henry C. Leipold (deceased), re Lindbergh Case. January 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 499 Ibid. 500 Ibid. 501 Ibid.

502 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Henry C. Leipold, re Julius Forstmann, 22 East 71st Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. January 17, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 503 Ibid. 504 Ibid. 505 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of in reference to Henry C. Leipold, re Julius Forstmann, Jr. who is alleged to be connected with his father’s business at 200 Madison Avenue, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. January 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 506 Leon, Samuel l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. The showing of picture of Alfred H. Franke to Dr. John F. Condon, re Lindbergh Case. January 23, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: For information on the invention of the “Missing” Taxi Driver see TDC Volume II, starting on page 148.) 507 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Henry C. Leipold, re Alfred H. Franke, re Lindbergh Case. January 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 508 Snook, R. A. Supervisor. Central Bureau of Identification. New Jersey State Police. Memorandum from R. A. Snook to Sgt. A. Zapolsky. February 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 509 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Julius Forstmann, 2 Barbour Avenue, aic, N.J., re Lindbergh Case. February 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 510 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates; in connection with the Lindbergh Case. July 19, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

511 Snook, R. A. (Acting) Captain, Supervisor. State Bureau of Identification. Department of State Police Report. Examination of fingerprint. January 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 512 Woodward, F. M. Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service - Treasury Department. Letter from F. M. Woodward to Mr. Frank J. Wilson. August 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 513 Snook, R. A. (Acting) Captain, Supervisor. State Bureau of Identification. Department of State Police Report. Examination of signature of P. A. Flak. February 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 514 Horn, William F. Corp. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning one P. A. Flak, re Lindbergh Case. June 14, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 515 Ibid. 516 Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of continued investigation concerning one P. A. Flak, re: Lindbergh Case. June 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 517 Seery, W. F. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 6, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 518 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). List. #18. (Listing offences of Clara Shaw and Hazel Sage). July 6, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 519 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and Associates in connection with the Lindbergh Case. June 30, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 520 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Carl Oswin Giessler and his Associates in connection

with the Lindbergh Case. June 30, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Keaten’s report claimed Harry was committed to “Wards Island.”) 521 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re questioning of Mr. Lester Nelson, Attorney for Mrs. Jane E. Giessler, in connection with the Lindbergh Investigation. July 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 522 Ibid. 523 Wilson, Frank J., Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service. Internal Revenue Report. SI-6336. In re: Kidnapping and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. page 24. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 524 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation of Carl O. Giessler and Associates, re Homer A. Boushey and Mr. Springstead who formerly worked with Mrs. Giessler, re Lindbergh Case. July 12, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 525 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Obtaining the forwarding addresses of all individuals who have resided in the 500 block of West 149th Street for the past two years. July 12, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 526 Ibid. 527 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Mr. Henry M. Atkins, Vice President of the Irving Trust Company located at 1 Wall Street, New York City, in reference to one Payne L. Kretzmer, the owner of the Plymouth Apartments located at 537 West 149th Street, in connection with the Lindbergh Case. July 17, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 528 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation in reference to Payne L. Kretzmer and Howard Arndt; in connection with the Lindbergh Case. July 19, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

529 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Obtaining the forwarding addresses of all individuals who have resided in the 500 block of West 149th Street for the past two years. July 12, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 530 Ibid. 531 Maloney, Willard F. Special Agent. Internal Revenue Service - Treasury Department. Letter from Williard F. Maloney to Mr. Herbert E. Lucas, Acting Special Agent in Charge. SI-6336-M. July 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 532 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing John L. Kretzmer of 67 Union Street, Montclair, N. J. in reference to Howard Arndt who was the male nurse of Payne L. Kretzmer. July 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 533 Ibid. 534 Ibid. 535 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation regarding Howard Arndt. July 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 536 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation in reference to Howard W. Arndt former male nurse to Payne L. Kretzmer. July 28, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 537 Hill, Edward A., Special Agent. Internal Revenue Service, Treasury Department. Letter from Edward A. Hill to Mr. Arthur A. Nichols. September 12, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 538 Ibid. 539 Ibid. 540 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Leon, Samuel l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Howard W. Arndt of 27 Linden Place,

Summit, N. J., re: Lindbergh Case. June 26, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 541 Ibid. 542 Ibid. (Note: Another source spells this man’s name as “Meseke.”) 543 Ibid. 544 Ibid. 545 Snook, R. A. Captain, Supervisor. State of New Jersey. Department of State Police Report. Examination of handwriting. July 3, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 546 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Patrick S. Murray, mail carrier, who serves mail at 149th Street, New York and Mr. S. Norton who previously served mail at that address, in reference to the Faulkners or any of the tenants, past and present, occupying the above premises. July 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 547 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Dr. Thomson, 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. August 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 548 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation as to the whereabouts of Duane Baker, alias Duane Bacon, re Lindbergh Case. September 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 549 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Photostats returned from Dr. Souder after being compared with the Lindbergh Ransom notes and Faulkner Deposit Slip of May 1st, 1933, which was left at the Federal Reserve Bank, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. September 14, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 550 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police

Report. Interviewing the Reverend Arthur F. Mabon of the Hamilton Reformed Church, 149th Street and Convent Avenue, New York City, in reference to former tenants at 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. September 19, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 551 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. AND Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continuation of investigation as to the whereabouts of Duane Baker, alias Duane Bacon former Superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments, 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. October 30, 1933 New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 552 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Duane Baker, Ex-Superintendent of the apartment at 537 West 149th Street, New York City, and now employed as Superintendent of the Apartments located at 3444 Knox Place, Bronx, N.Y. November 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 553 Ibid. 554 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Statement made by Duane W. Baker, alias Duane Bacon, former Superintendent of 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. December 8, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 555 Ibid. 556 Ibid. 557 Sisk, T. H. DOI (FBI) et. al., DOI Report. Summary. NY File No. 62-3057, p. 275. February 16, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 558 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Statement made by Duane W. Baker, alias Duane Bacon, former Superintendent of 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. December 8, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

559 Ibid. 560 Manning, J. J. Special Agent, DOI. USBOI Report. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. December 8, 1933. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 561 Ibid. 562 Leslie, H. C. Special Agent, DOI. USBOI Report. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 20, 1934. (Note: There’s mention of future inquiries to be made but I did not find any). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 563 Turrou, L. G. Special Agent, DOI. USBOI Report. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. August 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 564 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of a removal from 537 West 149th Street, New York City to 14 Fordham Street, City Island, New York by Ruth Lohse and Ruth Griffen. July 26, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 565 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police, New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the following names which are removals from 537 West 149th Street, New York City, re Lindbergh Case. January 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 566 Turrou, L. G. Special Agent, DOI. USBOI Report. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 27, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 567 Ibid. 568 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation in reference to the Lindbergh Ransom bills. May 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 569 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Lindbergh Case regarding John Faulkner of 1336 Balcom Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. who was born February 5, 1900 and went to school under

Dr. Condon at Public School #-12, Bronx, N. Y. May 8, 1933 New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 570 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation in connection with one J. J. Faulkner who deposited Gold Certificates at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. May 8, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 571 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Lindbergh Case regarding John Faulkner of 1336 Balcom Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. who was born February 5, 1900 and went to school under Dr. Condon at Public School #-12, Bronx, N. Y. May 9, 1933 New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 572 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation in connection with one J. J. Faulkner who made a deposit of Gold Certificates at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. May 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 573 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For Director. Unknown Subjects Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. June 29, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 574 See TDC Volume I, pages 326-352 (For a better understanding of this “rocky” relationship). 575 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For Director. Unknown Subjects Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. July 27, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 576 Ho-age, Leon. General Service Bureau. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. April 20, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 577 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 122. 578 Nathan, Harold. Asst. Director, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Director. November 2, 1933. National Archives at College Park Maryland.

579 Hoover, J. E. Director, Division of Investigation. Letter from J. E. Hoover to Mr. T. H. Sisk. June 30, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 580 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum. Memorandum For The Director. June 8, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 581 Hoover, J. E. Director, Division of Investigation. Letter from J. E. Hoover to Colonel Schwarzkopf. October 12, 1933. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 582 Hoover, J. E. Director, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Attorney General. September 13, 1933. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 583 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum. Memorandum For The Director. June 8, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 584 Ibid. (Note: Full cooperation with the FBI by the Treasury Department finally came once AG Homer S. Cummings ordered Commissioner Guy T. Helvering via a letter written on September 30, 1933). 585 Hoover, J. E. Director, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Attorney General. June 8, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland.

586 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation. Memorandum. Memorandum For The Director. June 8, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 587 Hoover, J. E. Director, Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Attorney General. June 8, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 588 Ibid. 589 Ibid. 590 Seery, W. F. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. June 23, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 591 Ibid. 592 Seery, W. F. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 6, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 593 Seery, W. F. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 594 Seery, W. F. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Different report than above) 595 Tamm, E. A. Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Director. August 3, 1934. College Park Maryland. 596 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation regarding Henry C. Leipold, re Lindbergh Case. September 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives. 597 Horn, William F. Det. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning interview with Lieutenant Hagerman, Troop “K”, Headquarters, New York State Police, Hawthorne, New York, re: Lindbergh Case. January 11, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 598 See TDC Volume II, pages 499-500. 599 Koehler, Arthur. “How The Lumber In The Ladder Used For Kidnapping The Lindbergh Baby Was Traced.” Manuscript (Marked: “Not For Publication”). Undated (circa 1948). Page 7. Forest Products Laboratory. 600 Yale University News Bureau. Afternoon Release. March 28, 1952. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 601 Kribs, David A., Wood Technologist, Pennsylvania State Forestry School. Letter from David A. Kribs to Honorable Harold G. Hoffman. April 7, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 602 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2269, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 603 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Report with attachments. History Of Tracing North Carolina Pine In Rails 12 And 13 Of Lindbergh Kidnap Ladder. (Marked: “Not For Publication”). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 604 Dodge, H. C. President, S. A. Woods Machine Company. Letter from H. C. Dodge to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. March 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 605 MacBeath, M. A. Sales Department, Yates-American Machine Company. Letter from M. A. MacBeath to Mr. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. April 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 606 Adkins, F. P. President, E. S. Adkins & Company. Letter from F. P. Adkins to Mr. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. April 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police

Museum and Learning Center Archives. 607 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Examination of the ladder used in the Lindbergh kidnapping by Mr. H. A. Perkins, President of the Production Machinery Sales Corporation, 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York City. April 25, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 608 Perkins, H. A. Report of examination of ladder for the New Jersey State Police. April 27, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 609 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Capt. J. J. Lamb. May 6, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 610 Macbeath, M. A. Sales Department. Yates-American Machine Company. Letter from M. A. Macbeath to Mr. Arthur Koehler. June 16, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 611 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Capt. J. J. Lamb. June 20, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 612 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Col. Schwarzkopf. August 23, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 613 Ibid. 614 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Colonel Schwarzkopf. September 15, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 615 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Colonel Schwarzkopf. October 7, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 616 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Colonel Schwarzkopf. October 28, 1933. New Jersey State

Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 617 Note Card. Memo from Stanley to Captain Lamb. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 618 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on examination of the ladder used in the Lindbergh kidnapping case by Arthur Koehler, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. November 10, 1933. (Note: Report covers dates beginning November 7, 1933 thru December 20, 1933). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 619 Ibid. 620 Ibid. 621 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Mr. G. W. Cropsey. November 9, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 622 “Hallowell & Souder.” Letter from “Hallowell & Souder” to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Supt. November 13, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 623 Schluter, W. N., Halligan & McLellan Inc. Letter from W. N. Halligan to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. November 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 624 Invoice No. 7378. From Halligan & McLellan, Inc., shipped to Williamsbridge, N. Y. via New York Central RR., sold to National Lumber & Millwork Company 3541 White Plains Road, New York, N.Y. November 24, 1931. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 625 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on examination of the ladder used in the Lindbergh kidnapping case by Arthur Koehler, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. November 10, 1933. (Note: Report covers dates beginning November 7, 1933 thru December 20, 1933). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 626 Ibid.

627 Schrager, Adam J. 2013. The Sixteenth Rail: The Evidence, the Scientist, and the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Fulcrum Publishing. Page 114. 628 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on examination of the ladder used in the Lindbergh kidnapping case by Arthur Koehler, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. November 10, 1933. (Note: Report covers dates beginning November 7, 1933 thru December 20, 1933). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 629 Ibid. (Note: Bold added). 630 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Capt. J. J. Lamb. April 30, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Letter says “13”). 631 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. May 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 632 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Capt. J. J. Lamb. June 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Bold added.) 633 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Capt. J. J. Lamb. June 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 634 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Interrogation. Conducted by Inspector John A. Lyons, 18th Division, etc. September 19, 1934 at 3:00 P. M. Pages 12-13. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Nine other LE were present during this interrogation). 635 Ibid. Page 13. 636 “Lindbergh Kidnapping Case Solved.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. September 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 637 “Ladder Clue Is Traced To Lumber Yard.” Rochester Democrat And Chronical. September 22, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

638 Zapolsky, A. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning the employment of Richard Hauptmann by the National Millwork and Lumber Company, 3541 White Plains Avenue, Bronx, N. Y. October 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 639 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. November 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 640 Ibid. 641 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. November 16, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 642 Dorn, J. J. President, M.G. & J. J. Dorn Incorporated. Letter from J. J. Dorn to Mr. Arthur Koehler. November 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 643 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. November 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 644 Dorn, J. J. President, M.G. & J. J. Dorn Incorporated. Letter from J. J. Dorn to Mr. Arthur Koehler. November 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 645 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. November 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 646 Koehler, Arthur. In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Mr. J. J. Dorn. December 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 647 Green, Frederick III. Research Microbiologist, USDA Forest Products Laboratory. “Was Edward Manning Davis The Brains Behind Arthur Koehler And The Wood Evidence?” Internet Work. March 28, 2006. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com

648 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory AND Davis, E. M., U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on wood in the Lindbergh Kidnap ladder by Arthur Koehler and E. M. Davis, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. December 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 649 Ibid. 650 Ibid. 651 Typed Document. Unsigned. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 652 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Q & A. Questions and Answers Prepared by Arthur Koehler U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. January 9, 1935. (Emphasis added). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 653 Ibid. 654 Ibid. (Note: Bold added). 655 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory AND Davis, E. M., U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on Comparison of Six Samples from National Lumber & Millwork Co. with parts of ladder and with earlier sample as to number of knives, rate of feed and presence of peculiar machining defect. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: I could not find any copy of this report that was signed by Davis). 656 Sisk, T. H. Special Agent, Division of Investigation (FBI). Memorandum For The Director. Unknown Subjects Kidnapping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. July 27, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 657 “Indict Hauptmann as Baby Slayer.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. October 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 658 Hoover, John Edgar, Director. Memorandum For Mr. Tamm. October 9, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland.

659 Tamm, E. A. Division of Investigation. Memorandum For The Director. January 23, 1935. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 660 Ibid. 661 “Who Made That Ladder?” The Saturday Evening Post. April 20, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 662 Koehler, Arthur. “How The Lumber In The Ladder Used For Kidnapping The Lindbergh Baby Was Traced.” Manuscript (Note: Marked: “Not For Publication”). Undated (circa 1948). Page 16. Forest Products Laboratory. 663 Ibid. (Note: Day and Month were left blank). 664 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 2279-80, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 665 Haussling, E. A. Det., NJSP AND Dunn, Thomas, Det. Jersey City Police Dept. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Det. Dunn and Sergeant E. A. Haussling, detailed by Lieutenant Dunn to accompany Deputy U. S. Marshall Benson to Hopewell, N. J. to interview Mr. J. Hulfish. March 6, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Not to be confused with his brother - Superintendent Rezeau B. (“Mike) Hullfish Jr.) 666 Benson, Wayne, Deputy U.S. Marshal. “Benson’s Report.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 667 Haussling, E. A. Det., NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Sgt. Haussling and Trooper Dean. March 7, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 668 See TDC Volume I, page 217 (for another example). 669 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of ladder used in the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr., investigation conducted in the Bureau of Agriculture Building, Washington, D. C. May 25, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

670 Brantley, Dwight. Special Agent, Bureau of Investigation. Memo for Special Agent in Charge J. M. Keith. Unknown Subjects. Miscellaneous. File #62-2307. May 25, 1932. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 671 Fry, W. H. Soil Petrographer, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Memorandum For Dr. H. G. Knight, Chief of Bureau. May 24, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 672 Appel, C. A. Special Agent, Bureau of Investigation. Memorandum For The Director. May 24, 1932. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 673 Leon, Samuel J. l. NJSP AND Horn, William F. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of attempt to trace on Buck Bros., chisel #30, handled firmer chisel, beveled edge, ¾ inch, same found at scene of Kidnapping of Chas. A. Lindbergh Jr., at Hopewell, N.J., Mar. 1st, 1932. (Identification mark “LK” on handle). October 4, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 674 Ibid. 675 Lamb, J. J. Captain. NJSP. Chain of Custody. October 15, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Two Chisels: One bought new and one found at the scene of kidnapping). 676 Anderson, John F. Director, E. R. Squibb & Sons. Letter from John F. Anderson to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. November 4, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 677 Holaday, H. A., E. R. Squibb Report. Report of examination of Steel Chisel received in his office by H. A. Holaday from Detective Bornmann on October 17, 1932. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: See also TDC Volume I, page 215.) 678 Ibid. 679 Botschart, Harry. Captain of Detectives, Trenton Police Department. Letter from Harry Botschart to James S. Kirkham. February 3, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 680 Carlile, Winslow P., Director, Forest Products Laboratory. Letter from

Carlile P. Winslow to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. February 18, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 681 Koehler, Arthur. U. S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of Examination Of Ladder For The New Jersey State Police. March 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 682 Ibid. 683 Ibid. 684 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Co-operating with Mr. Koehler, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. March 11, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 685 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of Field Work on the Lindbergh case by Arthur Koehler, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. March 24, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 686 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Carlile P. Winslow. March 10, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 687 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Continued report of Field Work on the Lindbergh case by Arthur Koehler, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. March 13, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 688 Ibid. 689 See TDC Volume I, pages 218-9. (Also note: Both Bornmann and DeGaetano had confiscated “tools” and “nails similar to those in the ladder” from that shack on May 14, 1932 during a t search of the premises.) 690 Schippell, Charles. Affidavit. Sworn to Edward R. Whitehead. December 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: There are several versions concerning the spelling of this name. Sometimes “Shippel,” “Schipel,” or “Shappel,” but this affidavit is signed

“Schippell” which along with “Schippel” is what’s used in the reports most often). 691 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Co-operating with Mr. Koehler, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin, in attempting to trace the origin of the lumber used in the ladder in the Lindbergh kidnapping case. April 5, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Report spans dates beginning March 27th thru April 4th, 1933.) 692 Ruggiero, F. J. Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Rudolph Hasse, 1380 Sheridan Avenue, Bronx, N. Y., reLindbergh Investigation. September 28 & 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 693 Kelly, W. P. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the Lindbergh Case in New York City re tools confiscated from Richard Hauptmann. September 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 694 Ruggiero, R. J. Det. NJSP. Inventory. (On NYPD Letterhead). September 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 695 Ibid. 696 Kelly, W. P. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the Lindbergh Case in New York City re tools confiscated from Richard Hauptmann. September 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 697 Koehler, Arthur. U. S. Forest Product Laboratory. Report. Report of examination of tools and lumber from Hauptmann’s garage and house by Arthur Koehler. October 1 to 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Capitalization in report). 698 Ibid. (Note: Capitalization in report). 699 Ibid. 700 Koehler, Arthur. Notes. Written on working copy of his March 4, 1933

report. Author’s Possession. 701 See TDC Volume II, page 495 702 Horn, William F. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Investigation concerning attempt to trace one Buck Bros., chisel #30, Handled Firmer Chisel, beveled edge ¼”, same found among tools owned by Bruno Richard Hauptmann, re. Lindbergh Case. December 18, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 703 Ibid. 704 Ibid. (Note: These quotes are not mistakes. The wording is almost identical to the October 4, 1932 report). 705 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory AND Davis, E. M., U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on wood in the Lindbergh Kidnap ladder by Arthur Koehler and E. M. Davis, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. December 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 706 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Q & A. Questions and Answers Prepared by Arthur Koehler U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. January 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 707 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Testimony Outline. Evidence to be Presented at the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. Undated (December 1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 708 Ibid. 709 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Q & A. Questions and Answers Prepared by Arthur Koehler U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. January 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Bold added). 710 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2341, 1935.

New Jersey State Law Library. 711 Ibid. Page 2262. 712 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 231. 713 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2262, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 714 Ibid. Page 2263. 715 Ibid. Pages 2263-4. 716 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2689, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 717 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Interrogation. Conducted by Inspector John A. Lyons “and others.” September 20, 1934 at 11:05 A. M. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 718 Ibid. 719 Hauptmann, Richard. Autobiography: Unedited & Uncorrected (Translated). The Story of My Life. Page 220. May 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 720 Ibid. Page 221. 721 Hauptmann, Richard. Letter from “Richard” to “Dear Mother.” December 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 722 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Statement. By Ellis H. Parker. Stenographer – Anna E. Bading. June 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 723 Johnson, Squire, Asst. Director of Const. Division Architecture & Construction. Letter from Squire Johnson to Colonel H. Norman Swartzkopf

[sic], Superintendent of New Jersey State Police. March 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 724 The ¾” Buck Brothers Chisel found at Highfields was entered into evidence on January 7, 1935 as Exhibit S-34. 725 New Jersey State Police. Lindbergh Kidnapping – A State Police Review with Annexes. March 15, 1980. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 726 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to Mr. Ellis H. Parker. December 23, 1935. Andy Sahol Collection. 727 Parker, Ellis H. Burlington Country Chief of Detectives. Report. Re: Chisel. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 728 Scaduto, Anthony. 1976. Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Page 393. 729 Scaduto, Anthony. Letter from Anthony Scaduto to Lieut. Robert W. Hicks. August 4, 1978. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 730 Scaduto, Anthony. 1976. Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Page 395. 731 Ibid. 732 See TDC Volume II, page 453. 733 Ibid. Page 495. 734 Turrou, L. G., Special Agent, United States Bureau of Investigation (FBI). USBOI Report. Bruno Richard Hauptmann with alias. Kidnaping And Murder Of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. October 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 735 Ibid. 736 Leon, Samuel J. l. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police

Report. Assisting in the search of the home and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, 1279 East 222nd Street, Bronx, N. Y., for the purpose of locating ransom money and other evidence in the Lindbergh Case. September 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 737 Ibid. 738 Ibid. 739 Koehler, Arthur, In Charge, Section of Silvicultural Relations, Forest Products Laboratory. Letter from Arthur Koehler to Captain J. J. Lamb. September 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 740 Koehler, Arthur. Western Union from Arthur Koehler to Captain J. J. Lamb. “Typed by CB at 11:12 a.m.” “Phoned by East Time 11:30” September 22, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 741 Kelly, W. P. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation in New York City regarding the Lindbergh Case. September 22, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 742 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Search in New York City for a suspect in connection with the Lindbergh kidnaping case. September 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. (Note: The last dated entry on this report is for September 24th which I believe is the actual date the report was written). 743 See TDC Volume II, pages 511-20. 744 Kelly, W. P. Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of the Lindbergh Case in New York City re search of Hauptmann house for an athletic shoe. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 745 Ibid. 746 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Bronx County Court House, N. Y. Searching of Bruno Richard

Hauptmann’s Home and garage located at 1279 E. 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. ##r ####################### for evidence in connection with the #### kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby on March 1, 1932. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 747 Ibid. 748 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s Home and garage located at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence in connection with the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby on March 1, 1932. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 749 Ibid. 750 Koehler, Arthur. Western Union from Arthur Koehler to New Jersey State Police. 9:50 AM. September 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Indicating his arrival in Philadelphia in route to New Jersey). 751 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 752 Ibid. 753 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 26, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 754 Ibid. 755 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and

Learning Center. (Note: Report #3) 756 Bornmann, Lewis J. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2157, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 757 Exhibit S-227. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 758 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer – Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. B. M. Thompson. August 5, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 759 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 342. 760 Ibid. 761 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. (Note: Report #3) 762 Leslie, H. C. Special Agent. Division of Investigation. Memorandum For File. Re: Bruno Richard Hauptmann with alias and Unknown Subjects; Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. October 6, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 763 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. (Note: Report #3) 764 Ibid. 765 Koehler, Arthur. U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of examination of tools and lumber from Hauptmann’s garage and house by Arthur Koehler. October 1 to 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

766 Ibid. 767 Ibid. 768 Wallace, John Det. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Mr. Max Rausch, owner of house at 1279 – East 222nd Street, Bronx, N.Y. at his place of employment at the Gramatan Hotel, Bronxville, N.Y. October 5, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 769 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. (Note: Report #3) 770 Ibid. 771 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Taking Mr. Koehler to the Hauptmann home in the Bronx for the purpose of ing whether or not a piece of the flooring in the attic of Hauptmann’s home is identical to any of the rails of the ladder. (See reports of September 26th and October 8, 1934). October 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 772 Ibid. 773 Koehler, Arthur. U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of examination of tools and lumber from Hauptmann’s garage and home by Arthur Koehler. October 31, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 774 Ibid. 775 Ibid. 776 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Taking Mr. Koehler to the Hauptmann home in the Bronx for the purpose of ing whether or not a piece of the flooring in the attic of Hauptmann’s home is identical to any of the rails of the ladder. (See reports of

September 26th and October 8, 1934). October 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 777 Ibid. 778 Koehler, Arthur. U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of examination of tools and lumber from Hauptmann’s garage and home by Arthur Koehler. October 31, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 779 Ibid. 780 Ibid. 781 Ibid. 782 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interviewing Max Rauch, t owner with his mother of the premises occupied by Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 East 222nd Street, Bronx, New York. October 11, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 783 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Photographing of linen closet in the Hauptmann home from which access is gained to the attic. October 12, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 784 Koehler, Arthur. U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of examination of tools and lumber from Hauptmann’s garage and home by Arthur Koehler. October 31, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 785 Ibid. 786 See TDC Volume II, an example is located on page 40, footnote #140. 787 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Testimony Outline. Evidence to be Presented at the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. Undated (December 1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives. 788 Ibid. 789 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching apartment and garage of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at 1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence which might be of value in connection Lindbergh case. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. (Note: Report #3) 790 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Testimony Outline. Evidence to be Presented at the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Arthur Koehler, Wood Technologist, U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. Undated (December 1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 791 Ibid. 792 Ibid. 793 Koehler, Arthur. Typed Pre-Trial Q & A. Questions and Answers Prepared by Arthur Koehler U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. January 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 794 Ibid. 795 Bornmann, Lewis J. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2151, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 796 Ibid. Page 2152. 797 Ibid. Page 2153. 798 Ibid. Page 2155. 799 Ibid. 800 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Searching of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s Home and garage located at

1279 E 222d Street, Bronx N.Y. for evidence in connection with the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby on March 1, 1932. September 25, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 801 Bornmann, Lewis J. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2156, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 802 Ibid. 803 Ibid. Page 2171. 804 Ibid. 805 Ibid. Page 4206. 806 Ibid. Page 4213. 807 Ibid. Page 4214. 808 Enkler, Charles F. W. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2173, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 809 Ibid. 810 Ibid. 811 Ibid. 812 Ibid. Page 2175. 813 Ibid. Page 2183. 814 Ibid. 815 Ibid. Page 2175. 816 Cramer, Anselm. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 2188-9, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library.

817 Ibid. Page 2189. 818 Ibid. 819 See Exhibit S-226. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center 820 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2200, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 821 Ibid. Page 2209. 822 Ibid. Page 2216. 823 Rauch, Max. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2059, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 824 Ibid. Page 2060. 825 Miller, Gustave. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 3729, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. (Note: Same leak Hauptmann claimed led to the discovery of the Ransom Money contained in the box Fisch left behind which he had stored on the top shelf and had forgotten about.) 826 Ibid. Page 3735. 827 Ibid. Page 3736. 828 Ibid. Page 3737. 829 Ibid. 830 Ibid. Page 3738. 831 Exhibit S-226. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 832 Ibid. 833 Ibid.

834 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to David T. Wilentz. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 835 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to David T. Wilentz. Undated (February 2, 1935). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 836 Wilentz, David T. Western Union from David T. Wilentz to Lloyd Fisher. February 3, 1935 (11:03 AM). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 837 Bornmann, Lewis J. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 4208, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 838 Ibid. Page 4209. 839 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know)” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 840 Tamm, E. A. Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Memorandum For The Director. December 10, 1935. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 841 Ibid. 842 Ibid. 843 Hoover, John Edgar. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Memorandum For Mr. Tamm. October 9, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 844 Trooper William Lewis is also mentioned throughout both previous volumes of TDC. 845 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Letter from Wm. Lewis to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

846 Ibid. 847 Ibid. 848 The Press, The Capitol, Trenton, N.J. Western Union to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. March 11, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 849 Spiro, Amster, City Editor New York Journal. Western Union to Col. Lindbergh, Col. Breckenridge and other advisors of the family. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 850 Questions From Publicity Room State House. “Emergency Questions.” May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 851 Schwarzkopf, Col. H. Norman. Emergency Bulletin. May 12, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 852 Questions From Publicity Room State House. “Series 189.” May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 853 Schwarzkopf, Col. H. Norman. Answers to Bulletin No 189. May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 854 Questions From Publicity Room State House. “Series 189.” May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 855 Schwarzkopf, Col. H. Norman. Answers to Bulletin No 189. May 13, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 856 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Letter from Wm. Lewis to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 857 Ibid. 858 Daws, George. Western Union from George Daws to Colonel Schwarzkopf. June 17, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 859 Schoeffel, Chas. H., Major and Deputy Superintendent, New Jersey State

Police. Special Order No. 129. June 30, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 860 See TDC Volume I, pages 224-33. 861 Koehler, Margaret Hudson. Letter from Margaret H. Koehler to Col. Clinton L. Pagano. June 14, 1976. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Footnote #705 cited in TDC Volume I is a different letter). 862 See TDC Volume I, pages 224-33. 863 C. D. Lee, “Finger-Prints Can Be Forged”, 25 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 671 (1934-1935). Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 864 Ibid. page 671. 865 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 50. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 866 Ibid. 867 Ibid. 868 Koehler, Margaret Hudson. Letter from Margaret H. Koehler to Col. Clinton L. Pagano. June 14, 1976. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 869 Keyes, Harold C. Report. Untitled. Undated. (Attached to a letter to Governor Hoffman dated January 10, 1936.) New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 870 Ibid. 871 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. ing Trooper Frank A. Kelly, New Jersey State Police, reference the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case. January 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

872 Ibid. 873 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Re Visit of Ex-Tpr William Lewis. January 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 874 Ibid. 875 Ibid. 876 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Re Visit of Ex-Tpr. William Lewis. January 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 877 Dictograph Transcription. Butler, N. J., January 28, 1936. 2:25 P. M. 878 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Re Visit of Ex-Tpr. William Lewis. January 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 879 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. ing Trooper Frank A. Kelly, New Jersey State Police, reference the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case. January 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 880 Ibid. 881 Ibid. 882 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Report. Phone calls from ExTpr. William Lewis. January 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 883 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. ing Trooper Frank A. Kelly, New Jersey State Police, reference the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case. January 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 884 Ibid.

885 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Visit from Ex-Tpr. William Lewis. January 30, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 886 Ibid. 887 Ibid. 888 Ibid. 889 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. ing Trooper Frank A. Kelly, New Jersey State Police, reference the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case. January 30, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 890 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Trooper Frank A. Kelly, New Jersey State Police, reference the HauptmannLindbergh case. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 891 Lewis, Bill. Letter from Bill Lewis to Governor. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This letter written on NJ Executive Department Letterhead). 892 Ibid. 893 Ibid. 894 Wilentz, David, Attorney General, State of New Jersey. Letter from David Wilentz General to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 895 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. ing Mrs. Frank A. Kelly, and others, reference the Hauptmann-Lindbergh case. February 1, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 896 Ibid. 897 Ibid.

898 Ibid. 899 Ibid. 900 Zapolsky, A. Det. Sgt., New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re: Ex-Trooper Lewis. February 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 901 Ibid. 902 Ibid. 903 Ibid. (Note: Emphasis added.) 904 Ibid. 905 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Lindbergh-Hauptmann Investigation. March 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 906 Ibid. 907 Ibid. 908 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to My dear Governor. March 9, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 909 Ibid. 910 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Lindbergh-Hauptmann Case. March 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 911 Hoffman, Harold, Governor. Letter from Harold Hoffman to Mr. Arch W. Loney. December 7, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 912 Blasius, N. P., Jr. Clerk, New Jersey State Police. Note from “Nick” to Attorney General. Undated (Written sometime after March 22, 1935). New

Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 913 Rauch, Max. List. Repairs at 1279 East 222nd St. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 914 Hoffman, Harold. Memorandum from The Governor to Colonel Schwarzkopf. Undated (January 1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 915 Hermann, Albert B. Clerk of the Court of Pardons. Memo Colonel Schwarzkopf. January 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 916 Dickerson, J. H. Det., New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Delivering message to, MAX RAUCH, 1279 St. 222nd. St. N.Y. City. January 14, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 917 Dickerson, J. H. Det., New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Interview with Max Rauch, 1279 East 22nd. St. Bronx, N.Y. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 918 Ibid. 919 Hoffman, Harold G., Governor of the State of New Jersey. Reprieve. To Bruno Richard Hauptmann. January 16, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 920 Ten Eyck Beekman, Gerard. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Letter from Gerard Ten Eyck Beekman to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 18, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 921 Loney, Arch W. Western Union from Arch W. Loney to E. J. Reilly. February 8, 1935. Rob O’Keefe Collection. 922 Loney, Arch W. Letter from Arch W. Loney to Hon Harold Hoffman. January 19, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

923 Ackerman, Alfred. The Seward Forest Office of the Director, University of Virginia. Letter from Alfred Ackerman to Governor Harold G. Hoffman. January 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 924 Hoffman, Harold G., Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. January 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 925 Press Release. From Governor Hoffman’s Office. Undated. (January 26, 1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 926 Codd, William S. Letter from William S. Codd to Harold H. Hoffman, Governor. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 927 Ibid. 928 LFM (Leo Meade, Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau.) REMINDERS for HGH. February 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 929 “Report New Test Shows ‘Frameup’ On Lindy Ladder.” Chicago Tribune. February 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 930 Ho-age, Leon. General Service Bureau. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. February 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 931 Ibid. 932 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to My dear Governor. February 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 933 Hoffman, Harold G., Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to My dear Colonel. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 934 Note: The men working for Hicks referred to him as “X-5” in many of their

reports and/or communications. 935 See TDC Volume II, Chapter 9. 936 “D-4” (Dillon, William D., Private Investigator). Report. Activities of Mr. Hoage in the former Hauptmann Apartment. March 12, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: As a reminder S-226 was part of Board #27 and Rail 16 was supposed to be the other part.) 937 Kelly, Frank A. Tpr., New Jersey State Police. Special Report. Visit of Mr. George Warren. March 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 938 Ibid. 939 Ibid. 940 Ho-age, Leon. Report. Hauptmann Attic. March 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 941 Ibid. 942 Exhibit S-250. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 943 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 2285-6, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 944 Ho-age, Leon. Report. Hauptmann Attic. March 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 945 Ibid. 946 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Lindbergh-Hauptmann Case. March 23, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 947 Meade, Leo. Note Pad Message. Note from Meade to HGH. Undated. (Attached to Lewis 3/23/36 Report). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

948 Hoffman, Harold G., Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to My dear Colonel. March 23, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 949 Bornmann, Lewis J. Det. N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Questioning by Governor Harold G. Hoffman. March 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 950 Borneman. Statement. Statement of State Trooper Borneman. March 24, 1936. Made to Governor Harold G. Hoffman, R. William Lagay, Secretary to the Governor, Mr. Hoge, Colonel Schwarzkopf, Captain Snook, and Lieutenant Keaton. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 951 Ibid. 952 Ibid. 953 Ibid. (Note: Bornmann is misspelled in this statement.) 954 Bornmann, Lewis J. Det. N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Questioning by Governor Harold G. Hoffman. March 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 955 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re: re-checking the lumber in the attic of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s former home at 1279 E. 222nd Street, Bronx, N.Y. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 956 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 957 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re: re-checking the lumber in the attic of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s former home at 1279 E. 222nd Street, Bronx, N.Y. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 958 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey

State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 959 Ibid. 960 Ibid. 961 Oursler, Fulton. 1964. Behold This Dreamer! Little, Brown. Page 339. (Note: Oursler was among the men in that attic.) 962 Ibid. Page 340. 963 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 964 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 965 Oursler, Fulton. 1964. Behold This Dreamer! Little, Brown. Page 341. 966 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re: re-checking the lumber in the attic of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s former home at 1279 E. 222nd Street, Bronx, N.Y. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 967 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 968 Oursler, Fulton. 1964. Behold This Dreamer! Little, Brown. Page 341. 969 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

970 Ibid. 971 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation re: re-checking the lumber in the attic of Bruno Richard Hauptmann’s former home at 1279 E. 222nd Street, Bronx, N.Y. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 972 Bornmann, Lewis J. Detective, N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Questioning by Governor Hoffman. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 973 Ibid. 974 Maines, George H. Western Union from George H. Maines to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. March 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 975 Horn, William F. l. Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning Arch W. Loney, Room 5132, Interior Building, Federal Emergency istration of Public Works, Washington, D. C. February 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 976 Adams, Lynn G. Supt. Penna. State Police. Teletype from Lynn G. Adams to . H. Norman Schwarzkopf. (Marked “Confidential) March 3, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 977 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 978 Ibid. 979 From Governor Hoffman’s Office. Press Release. Immediate Release. March 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 980 Ibid. 981 Ibid.

982 Wilton, G. G. l. Identification Bureau. Report Of Photographic Investigation. March 27, 1936 and March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 983 Koehler, Arthur. Wood Technologist, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report of investigation carried on in cooperation with the New Jersey State Police. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 984 Loney, Arch W. Western Union from Arch W. Loney to Hon Harold G Hoffman. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 985 Trenton State Gazette. “Loney Attic Data Sent To Hoffman.” March 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 986 Hazeltine, Alan. Professor of Physical Mathematics, Stevens Institute of Technology. Letter from Alan Hazeltine to Governor Harold G. Hoffman. March 27, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 987 Ibid. 988 Ibid. 989 Hazeltine, Alan. Professor of Physical Mathematics, Stevens Institute of Technology. Letter from Alan Hazeltine to Mr. David T. Wilentz. April 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 990 Hoffman, Harold G. Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Professor Hazelton. April 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 991 Newspaper Clipping. Associated Press. April 1, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 992 Maines, George H. Western Union from George H. Maines to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. March 30, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 993 Maines, George H. Letter from George H. Maines to Hon. H. G. Hoffman.

April 5, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 994 Ho-age, Leon. General Service Bureau. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. H. G. Hoffman. April 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 995 “Ickes Fires Wood Expert for Bruno.” United Press. May 13, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 996 Schrager, Adam J. 2013. The Sixteenth Rail: The Evidence, the Scientist, and the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Fulcrum Publishing. Page 312. 997 Koehler, Arthur. Unpublished Manuscript. “Could the Ladder Have Been Framed?” Undated. Page 1. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 998 Ibid. Page 6. 999 Ibid. 1000 Ibid. Page 7. 1001 Harold G. Hoffman, Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Hyatt Smith, Esq. November 9, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1002 Ho-age, Leon. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. January 18, 1937. (Attached “Understanding” dated January 16, 1937). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1003 Lewis, William. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Removal of lumber from premises at 1279 East 22²nd Street, Bronx, New York City, N. Y. January 28, 1937. New Jersey State Police 1004 Ho-age, Leon. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. January 29, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1005 Ho-age, Leon. Letter from Leon Hoage to Gov. Harold G. Hoffman. February 2, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives. 1006 Note: Although one big report, the first section on the handwriting is dated January 26, 1937, while the Wood and Fingerprint sections which came after it are not. 1007 Snook, Russell A. Captain. New Jersey State Police. Review. A Summary Of The Handwriting, Wood And Fingerprint Evidence In The Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Undated (First section written on January 26, 1937 and copies of entire document made on November 30, 1937). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1008 Ibid. 1009 Ibid. 1010 Hudson, Erastus Mead. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 3810. New Jersey State Law Library. 1011 Wilton, Geo. G. l. New Jersey State Police. State Bureau of Identification Department of State Police. Photographic Chain of Custody. March 8, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1012 Exhibit S-302 & Exhibit S-303. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 1013 Betts, H. S. Senior Engineer, U.S. Forestry Service. Report On Examination Of Ladder. June 1, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1014 Ibid. 1015 Springfield, William B. Signed & Notarized Certification/Acknowledgement. January 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1016 Ho-age, Leon. Report/Rebuttal. Captain Snook On Ladder. Undated. (1937). Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1017 Ibid. 1018 Ho-age, Leon. Report/Rebuttal. Captain Snook On Ladder. Undated. (1937) Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: The 2nd report which mainly addressed the Exhibits). 1019 Loney, Arch W. Letter from Arch W. Loney to Governor. May 17, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1020 Loney, Arch W. Letter from Arch W. Loney to Governor. December 4, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1021 Harold G. Hoffman, Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Arch. December 7, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1022 Maines, George H. Letter from George H. Maines to Hon. H. G. Hoffman. January 13, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1023 Harold G. Hoffman, Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Colonel George H. Maines. June 21, 1939. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1024 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 129. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1025 Ibid. Page 131. 1026 Ibid. Page 133. 1027 Ibid. 1028 Ibid. Page 134. 1029 Pope, Frederick A. Handwritten Notes & Diagram. Undated. Rob O’Keefe Collection.

1030 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 122. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Pope on March 23, 1951.) 1031 Ibid. 1032 Ibid. Page 123. 1033 Ibid. Page 121. 1034 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report of Examination of Ladder For the New Jersey State Police. March 4, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1035 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Special Report. Examining of Evidence Re: L77311932. March 17, 1978. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1036 Ibid. 1037 Ibid. 1038 Ibid. 1039 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Laboratory Report. Lindbergh Kidnap/Murder. December 8, 1977. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1040 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Special Report. Examining of Evidence Re: L77311932. March 17, 1978. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1041 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Laboratory Report. Lindbergh Kidnap/Murder. February 28, 1978. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1042 Ibid. 1043 Yemma, Brian. “A Grain of Truth.” Boston Globe. June 2, 1998. New

Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1044 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Notes. March 16, 1984. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1045 Ibid. 1046 Ibid. 1047 Ibid. 1048 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Notes. March 19, 1984. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1049 Lane, Alan T. Senior Forensic Chemist, State of New Jersey Division of State Police. Notes. March 20, 1984. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1050 Ibid. 1051 Schweingruber, Fritz H. January 1989. Tree Rings: Basics and Applications of Dendrochronology. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1052 Schweingruber, Fritz. Email to Author. December 23, 2002. 1053 Schrager, Adam J. 2013. The Sixteenth Rail: The Evidence, the Scientist, and the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Fulcrum Publishing. Page 305. 1054 Keraga, Kelvin. Testimony in Wood: Analysis of the Rail 16 evidence in the Lindbergh Kidnapping. 2005. A copy of the “Summary 1.2” version of this report was originally linked on Court TV’s Forensic Files website. Kelvin Keraga is featured in the Forensic Files episode The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping: Investigation Reopened, which originally aired on May 11, 2005. 1055 Ibid. Page 32. 1056 Kevin Klein appeared in the Nova episode Who Killed Lindbergh’s Baby? (Season 40 | Episode 4) which originally aired on January 30, 2013.

1057 Klein, Kevin. Message Board Post. March 7, 2006. 5:58pm. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 1058 Ibid. 9:23pm. 1059 Klein, Kevin. Message Board Post. April 9, 2007. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 1060 Klein, Kevin. Message Board Post. April 26, 2007. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 1061 Klein, Kevin. Internet Work. The Rail 16 Explanation. August 7, 2006. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 1062 Koehler, Arthur. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2221, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1063 Hoage, Leon. Report. Hauptmann Attic. March 22, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1064 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Typed Notes. Attic. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1065 Pope, Frederick A. Handwritten Notes & Diagram. Undated. Rob O’Keefe Collection. 1066 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Various Things Done by the Prosecution to hinder and hold up the Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1067 Stockburger, H. New Jersey State Police Report. Conversation between Lawyer Fisher and Hauptmann at the Hunterdon County Jail in Flemington N.J. on December the 10th. 1934 partly overheard. December 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1068 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 21. (Note: Spelled exactly as written). New Jersey

State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1069 Ibid. (Note: Spelled exactly as written). 1070 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Things that Hauptmann complained of and things which he insisted should indicate his innocence. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1071 Ibid. 1072 Rauch, Max. Questioning. Made by Deputy Chief Inspector Henry Bruckman. September 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1073 Ibid. 1074 Bornmann, L. J. Detective, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Attending the hearing of Bruno Richard Hauptmann at the Bronx County Court House. October 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1075 Ibid. 1076 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Interview of Mr. James MacTighe, 45 S. Annapolis Ave., Atlantic City, N. J. reference Hauptmann: Lindbergh Case. February 3, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1077 Ibid. 1078 Bornmann. Untitled Memo. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Located in Wilentz’s File). 1079 Rauch, Max. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2060, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1080 Graves, Lewis W., Engineer – Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Oscar Koski. September 24, 1925. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1081 Graves, Lewis W., Engineer – Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Tobias Max Rauch. April 16, 1925. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1082 Rauch, Max. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 2061-2, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1083 Wright, F. E. Special Agent. DOI (FBI). Memorandum For File. Unknown Subjects – Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. September 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1084 Ibid. 1085 Zapolsky, A. Sgt., New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continued investigation with reference to Bruno Richard Hauptmann and associates, re: Lindbergh Case. December 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1086 “Kidnapper Said To Be Anti-Semite And Nazi.” Southern Israelite. October 19, 1934. Digital Library of Georgia. (Note: Lawyer referred to was H. Bennett Salomon. See TDC Volume II, page 521). 1087 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Interview of Mr. James MacTighe, 45 S. Annapolis Ave., Atlantic City, N. J. reference Hauptmann: Lindbergh Case. February 3, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1088 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of Oscar Koski, 2832 Mateland Avenue, Bronx, N. Y. December 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1089 Ibid. 1090 Ibid. 1091 Patterson, Claude Det. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Continuation of investigation, re: Oscar Koski, 2832 Mateland Avenue, Bronx, N. Y., re: Lindbergh Case. January 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police

Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1092 Koehler, Arthur, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory AND Davis, E. M., U.S. Forest Products Laboratory. Report. Report on examination of lumber in Hauptmann’s house by Arthur Koehler and E. M. Davis, U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1093 Ibid. 1094 Attorney General, The State of New Jersey. Invoice. Expenses as a Witness in the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Oscar Koski. January 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1095 Coskey, Oscar. Pretrial Questioning. Unsigned. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1096 Fox, Christopher, Manager at Church E. Gates & Company. Receipt given to Det. C. Patterson, N.J. State Police and Det. W. J. Wallace, New York City. January 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1097 The Standard Form of Subcontract. Contract between Max Rauch and Oscar Koski. April 15, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This contract refers to Rauch as both “owner” and “contractor” for the purposes of this agreement. This might have been Rauch’s “out” for testifying to being the contractor. However, several letters from Graves to Rauch also proves that Graves was writing/typing the actual subcontracts then sending them to Rauch to sign.) 1098 Church E. Gate & Company. Invoices. Sold to: Oscar Koski. May 1926 thru August 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1099 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. T. Max Rauch. July 20, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1100 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Oscar Koski. August 7, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and

Learning Center Archives. 1101 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Oscar Koski. September 25, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1102 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Oscar Koski. November 23, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1103 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Mr. Oscar Koski. June 8, 1927. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1104 Criterion Electric Co. Letter from Criterion Electric Co. to Mr. Graves. April 13, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1105 Stern, Leo S. Letter from Leo S. Stern to Mr. Louis W. Graves. May 1, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1106 Loving, P. A. Letter from P. A. Loving to Lewis W. Graves. July 21, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1107 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Loving Electrical Shop. July 23, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1108 Loving, P. A. Letter from P. A. Loving to Lewis W. Graves. Handwritten. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1109 Graves, Lewis W. Engineer - Contractor. Letter from Lewis W. Graves to Loving Electrical Shop. August 4, 1926. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1110 Loving, P. A. Letter from P. A. Loving to Lewis W. Graves. Handwritten. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1111 Null, Druscilla J. “Hunterdon County Courthouse.” Written Historical and Descriptive Data, Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. June 21, 1984. Prints and Photographs Division,

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C 1112 (Note: Apparently referring to the Pauly Jail Building and Manufacturing Company). 1113 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Situation in Reference to Guarding Hauptmann at Flemington Jail.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1114 Ibid. 1115 Ibid. 1116 Ibid. 1117 Arraignment Proceedings. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, October 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1118 On Petition for Rule to Show Cause. Sur Indictment For Murder. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer. December 11, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1119 Fisher, Jim. The Lindbergh Case. Rutgers University Press. 1987. Page 167. 1120 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 14. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Although untitled, this is one of his “I Appeal” manuscripts). 1121 Pender, W. C. Affidavit. June 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1122 Ibid. 1123 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Page 3. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1124 Ibid. 1125 Fisher, Lloyd. Affidavit. June 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1126 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Page 4. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1127 Curtis, John Hughes. Affidavit. June 22, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1128 Ibid. 1129 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Page 2. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1130 Walsh, Harry W. Inspector. Jersey City Police Dept. AND Keaton, A. T. Lieutenant. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation by Inspector Harry W. Walsh, of the Jersey City Police and Lieut. Arthur T. Keaton, of the N. J. State Police, concerning the kidnapping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. in Hopewell, N. J. between 8:00 and 10:00 P. M. on the night of March 1st. May 18, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1131 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Page 2. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1132 Ibid. Page 3. 1133 Ibid. Page 5. 1134 Stout, H. L. Letter from H. L. Stout to Col. Schwartskoff. June 6, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1135 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 17. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Although untitled, this is one of his “I Appeal” manuscripts).

1136 Ibid. 1137 Ibid. Page 16. 1138 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Pages 6-7. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1139 Pretrial Motions. The State of New Jersey vs. John Hughes Curtis, Quarters Session Court. June 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 1140 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. “Recollections As To The Early Days Of The Curtis Case.” Undated. Page 5. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1141 Ibid. 1142 Hauck, Mr. Opening. The State of New Jersey vs. John Hughes Curtis, Quarters Session Court. June 27, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 1143 Charge of the Court to the Jury. The State of New Jersey vs. John Hughes Curtis, Quarters Session Court. July 2, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 1144 Verdict. The State of New Jersey vs. John Hughes Curtis, Quarters Session Court. July 2, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center. 1145 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. Untitled. Undated. Page 18. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Although untitled, this is one of his “I Appeal” manuscripts). 1146 Fisher, C. Lloyd I Appeal! C. Lloyd Fisher’s Story. Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 16. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1147 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 52. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1148 Ibid. Page 61. 1149 Hauptmann, Anna. Letter from Anna Hauptmann to Mr. James M. Fawcett. November 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1150 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume III. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 16. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1151 Ibid. Pages 16-7. 1152 Ibid. Page 17. 1153 Ibid. 1154 Attorney General, The State of New Jersey. Invoice. Expenses in Lindbergh Kidnaping Case. George K. Large. Professional services as Special Assistant Attorney General in preparation and trial of State vs. Hauptmann. May 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1155 Large, George K. Letter from Geo. K. Large to Hon. David T. Wilentz. May 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1156 Hauck, Anthony M. Jr. Prosecutor Pleas, Hunterdon County. Letter from Anthony M. Hauck to Hon. David T. Wilentz. May 6, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1157 Schlosser, Charles R. Pretrial Questioning. Questioning by Robert Peacock. December 6, 12, and 17, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1158 Fisher, Lloyd. Typed Notes. Hauptmann’s Case. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1159 Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. (Note: Schleser’s name is often spelled several ways to include Schloser, Schlosser, Schlesser, Schloesser, etc.) 1160 “Ex-Prosecutor Held.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle. October 20, 1930. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1161 Newspaper Clipping. Associated Press. May 29, 1931. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1162 Wilentz, David. List. “Following is a list of the witnesses subpoenaed by the State of New Jersey in the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann.” Undated. Page 3. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Kurtz’s name is found in the 1st column, last name under “Prof. Harold Bender.”) 1163 Peacock, Robert. Summary of Testimony. In Re March 1, 1932. All Witnesses Will Testify As To Fisch’s Good Character And General Reputation. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1164 Schaefer, Erich. Pretrial Questioning. Questioning by Robert Peacock. December 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1165 Ibid. 1166 Ibid. 1167 Schlosser, Charles R. Pretrial Questioning. Questioning by Robert Peacock. December 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1168 “Second Kidnapper of Butcher Gets 12 to 20 Years.” Brooklyn Daily Eagle. March 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1169 Kurtz, Albert B. Letter from Albert Kurtz to David T. Wilentz, Esq. March 11, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1170 Trial Expenses. Document. Taken from bill submitted by Albert B. Kurtz, 122 East 42nd St. New York City, to State, under date of March 11, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1171 Kurtz, Albert. Memo to Attorney General Wilentz. Disbursements made – 1/31/35 to 2/2/35 by Albert B. Kurtz, Esq. February 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1172 Kurtz, Albert B. Letter from Albert B. Kurtz to Theodor Backes, Esq. February 19, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1173 Ibid. 1174 Ibid. 1175 Kurtz, Albert B. Letter from Albert B. Kurtz to Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. February 21, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1176 Ibid. 1177 Kurtz, Albert B. Letter from Albert B. Kurtz to David T. Wilentz, Esq. March 11, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1178 Schleser, Charles R. Letter from Charles R. Schleser to Mr. David T. Wilentz. March 26, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: “tsuris” obviously misspelled “tsaras.” Yiddish translation is “trouble.”) 1179 Kurtz, Albert B. Letter from Albert B. Kurtz to David T. Wilentz, Esq. April 8, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1180 Wilentz, David. Attorney General. Letter from David T. Wilentz to Alexander Budson Esq. August 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1181 Originally addressed in TDC Volume II, Pages 506-7. 1182 Scaduto, Anthony. 1976. Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Page 447. 1183 Ibid. Page 448. 1184 Kloppenburg, Hans. Letter from Han Kloppenburg to Mrs. Hauptmann. August 26, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: English Translation of original which is in German.)

1185 Jones, Wayne D. 1997. Murder of Justice: New Jersey’s Greatest Shame. Vantage Press. Pages 1103-1107. 1186 Kiss, Louis. Affidavit. February 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1187 Ibid. 1188 Ibid. 1189 Ibid. 1190 Weidinger, Desider. Affidavit. February 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1191 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to Ellis H. Parker. February 10, 1936. Andy Sahol Collection. 1192 Wilentz, David. Typed Notes. “Louis Kiss.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Includes typed testimony of Louis Kiss with that note at the very bottom on the very last page). 1193 Foster, George H. Affidavit. January 17, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1194 Ibid. 1195 Ibid. 1196 Secretary, Foster & Roberts International Detective Bureau Inc. Letter from “Secretary” to David T. Wilentz. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: The only copy which exists at the NJSP is a carbon without signature. Since I do not know who the secretary was, I cannot cite the name.) 1197 Wilentz, David. Letter from David Wilentz to Hon. William Brown. August 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1198 Foster, George H. Affidavit. January 17, 1936. New Jersey State Police

Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1199 Fisher, Lloyd. “The Case New Jersey Would Like to Forget,” Liberty Magazine. Part Four. August 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1200 Zich, Gerald. “Curtis Conviction Will Be A Skeleton In The Stat’s Closet.” Hunterdon County Democrat. January 12, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1201 Wilentz, David T. Attorney General. Letter from David Wilentz to William C. Pender. November 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1202 Fisher, Lloyd. Memo. Untitled. Undated. Unsigned. (Attached to his May 7, 1936 letter to Governor Hoffman). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1203 Pender, W. C. Letter from W. C. Pender to Honorable David T. Wilentz. December 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1204 Wilentz, David T. Attorney General. Letter from David Wilentz to W. C. Pender. December 10, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1205 Pender, W. C. Western Union from W. C. Pender to David T. Wilentz. December 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1206 Fisher, Lloyd. Memo. Untitled. Undated. Unsigned. (Attached to his May 7, 1936 letter to Governor Hoffman). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1207 Ibid. 1208 “State to Refuse Curtis Part in Hauptmann Case.” Winona RepublicaHerald. December 29, 1934. Winona State University Archives. 1209 Attorney General, The State of New Jersey. Invoice. Expenses in

Lindbergh Kidnaping Case. W. C. Pender. Jan. 5 and 6, 1935: Traveling expenses including transportation and hotel bills, John Hughes Curtis and W. C. Pender, Norfolk to Philadelphia and return, and W. C. Pender expenses Philadelphia to Trenton and return (In connection with the Bruno Hauptmann Trial). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1210 Morriss, Emma. Letter from Emma Morriss to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. April 10, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1211 Haskell, William Edwin. Letter from Bill Haskell to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. September 18, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1212 Haskell, William Edwin. Letter from Bill Haskell to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. January 31, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1213 “Bert C. Farrar, Handwriting Expert, Dead.” The Washington Post. January 19, 1944. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1214 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Q & A. Qualifying Bert C. Farrar. Undated (attached to letter dated October 12, 1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1215 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Major H. Norman Schwarzkopf. May 26, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1216 Ibid. 1217 Ibid. 1218 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Mr. Bert C. Farrar. May 31, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1219 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf.

October 3, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1220 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 12, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1221 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1222 Ibid. 1223 Ibid. 1224 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. December 1, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1225 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. December 13, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1226 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. January 21, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1227 Snook, R. A. Captain. New Jersey State Police. State Bureau of Identification Memo. Recommendations on handwriting experts. October 2, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1228 Ibid. 1229 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Captain R. A. Snook. February 16,

1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1230 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Captain R. A. Snook. April 1, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1231 Jeffreys, Robert L. Letter from Robert L. Jeffreys to Joseph C. Welch. August 30, 1939. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1232 Ibid. 1233 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Hon. David T. Wilentz. August 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1234 Appel, Charles A. Jr. Testimony. Bronx Grand Jury. People vs. Hauptmann. September 27, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1235 Osborn, A. S. Letter from Albert S. Osborn to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 1, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1236 Ibid. 1237 Farrar, Bert C., Examiner of Questioned Documents, U. S. Treasury Department. Letter from Bert C. Farrar to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. November 17, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1238 Osborn, Albert D. Letter from Albert D. Osborn to Captain R. A. Snook. November 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Relaying information from his father). 1239 Schulhofer, Louis. Letter from Louis Schulhofer to Hon. David T. Wilentz. April 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1240 Haring, John Vreeland. 1937. The Hand of Hauptmann. The Hamer Publishing Company. Page 197.

1241 Ibid. Pages 197-9. 1242 Fawcett, James M. Letter from James M. Fawcett to Hon. David T. Wilentz. October 23, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1243 “Lewis Confirms Opinion of State’s Writing Experts.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 21, 1935. 1244 See: Gardner, Lloyd C. June 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Page 337. (For the real reason why Malone & Myers did not testify for the Defense). 1245 Snook, R. A. Captain, New Jersey State Police. Letter from R. A. Snook to J. V. Haring. October 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This was the typical “brush off” reply). 1246 Spencer, B. H. Letter from Bushrod Spencer to Hon. Anthony M. Hauck Jr. December 22, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1247 Trachtenberg, Charles. Letter from Charles Trachtenberg to Hon. David T. Wilentz. November 14, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1248 Wilentz, David. Attorney General. Letter from David Wilentz to Charles Trachtenberg, Esq. November 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1249 Haring, John Vreeland. (1937). The Hand of Hauptmann. The Hamer Publishing Company. Page 112. 1250 Office of the Attorney General, The State of New Jersey. Invoice. J. Howard Haring. To Services Rendered – In re: Lindbergh Kidnaping Case. March 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1251 Haring, J. V. Letter from J. V. Haring to Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh. February 7, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1252 Cooney, T. J. Assistant General Manager, The Thiel Service Company. Memorandum For Mr. Buzby. January 18, 1933. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This company was a private investigation/detective agency used by various law enforcement agencies including the FBI. In this instance Cooney was working for G. W. Buzby, Superintendent of the Pennsylvania Railroad. By December 1933, Buzby had placed all information he had up to that point into the hands of the FBI.) 1253 Cassidy, Harry E. Letter from H. E. Cassidy to H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 21, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1254 Ibid. 1255 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Mr. Harry E. Cassidy. October 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1256 Sellers, James Clark. Letter from J. Clark Sellers to H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1257 Ibid. 1258 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Mr. Sellers. October 26, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1259 Turrou, Leon G. 1949. Where My Shadow Falls. Doubleday and Co. Page 122. 1260 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Manuscript. “I Have Been Sentenced To Death.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1261 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Statement. By Ellis H. Parker. Stenographer – Anna E. Bading. June 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1262 Osborn, Albert D. Letter from Albert D. Osborn to Joseph Lanigan, Esq.

November 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1263 Ibid. 1264 Osborn, Albert D. Form Letter & Instructions. Form letter to be used in securing specimens of handwriting from any suspects in checking handwriting with that used in the Lindbergh ransom notes. Undated (1932). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1265 Snook, R. A. Captain. New Jersey State Police. Letter from Capt. R. A. Snook to Mr. A. S. Osborn. December 14, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: All Experts received a similar letter). 1266 Memorandum For The Attorney General. List of Exhibits. Undated (1934). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1267 Sellers, James Clark. Letter from J. Clark Sellers to Captain R. A. Snook. December 8, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1268 Osborn, Albert D. Letter from Albert D. Osborn to Captain R. A. Snook. December 11, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1269 Stein, Elbridge Walter. Letter from E. W. Stein to Capt. R. A. Snook. December 1, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1270 Tyrrell, John F. Letter from John F. Tyrrell to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. November 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1271 Tyrrell, John F. Letter from John F. Tyrrell to Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. December 7, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1272 Ibid. 1273 Osborn, Albert S. Letter from A. S. Osborn to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. October 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1274 Osborn, Albert S. Letter from A. S. Osborn to Captain R. A. Snook. November 5, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1275 Osborn, Albert S. Letter from A. S. Osborn to Joseph Lanigan, Esq. December 3, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1276 Ibid. 1277 Exhibit S-252. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1278 Gardner, Lloyd. (2012). The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press. Pages 326-8. (Note: Interesting how Gardner calls into question whether or not the “d” may have actually been a “t.” See photo of the word in this book.) 1279 List. Hauptmann Bills Being Held. Undated (1935). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1280 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. September 3, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1281 Ibid. 1282 Ibid. 1283 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State

Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1284 Ibid. 1285 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know).” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1286 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1287 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know).” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1288 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1289 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know).” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1290 Ibid. 1291 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1292 Ibid. 1293 Porter, Russell B. “10 Hauptmann Case Jurors, 4 Women, Quickly Chosen; Col. Lindbergh a Spectator.” The New York Times. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1294 “Jury Tampering In Hauptmann Case Is Denied.” Associated Press. January 30, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1295 “Alleged Attempt To Tamper With Jury Reported.” Associated Press. January 30, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1296 “Hauptmann Jury Tampering Seen.” New York Post. January 30, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1297 “Jury Tampering In Hauptmann Case Is Denied.” Associated Press. January 30, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1298 Zich, Gerald E., Editor, Delaware Valley News. “The Mob At Flemington.” Letter to The Editor. The Washington Post. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1299 Fisher, Lloyd. The Trial. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1300 Hawke, George G. (1951) Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 33. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1301 Joseph, R. E., Office of the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Memorandum For Mr. Tolson. January 17, 1936. National Archives at College Park Maryland. 1302 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1303 Ibid. 1304 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 123. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1305 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1306 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was

Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 123. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1307 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1308 Fisher, Jim. The Lindbergh Case. Rutgers University Press. 1987. Page 274. 1309 Ibid. Page 452. 1310 Note: Names were purposely misspelled. 1311 Spencer, Mary Belle. No. 2310, Criminal File: Exposed! Limberg’s Baby Was Never Kidnapped or Murdered. 1933. Confidential News Syndicate. Page 48. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1312 “Tampering With Is Alleged.” Associated Press. December 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1313 “Murder Jury Change Asked.” United Press. December 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1314 Ibid. 1315 “Tampering With Is Alleged.” Associated Press. December 24, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1316 Nonamaker, Sarah. Voir Dire Examination. The State vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, On Indictment for Murder, Jury Selection. December Term, 1934. Page 50. January 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1317 Spencer, Mary Belle. Letter from Mary Belle Spencer to Detective Ellis H. Parker. December 13, 1935. Author’s Collection. 1318 Spencer, Mary Belle. Letter from Mary Belle Spencer to Honorable Harry Hoffman. December 13, 1935. Author’s Collection.

1319 Ibid. 1320 Ibid. 1321 Ibid. 1322 “Flemington: 300 Reporters, 200 Wires, “Minerva,” 750,000 Words Daily: Hauptmann Trial.” News-Week. December 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1323 “Daring Hauptmann’s Trial Cameraman Enter McCarter’s Wilds to Record “Take It Away!”” Daily Princetonian. December 1936. Larry DuPraz Digital Archives, Princeton University Library. 1324 “Protest Movie of Bruno Trial.” United Press. February 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1325 Kielbowicz, Richard B. “The Story Behind The Adoption Of The Ban On Courtroom Cameras.” Journal of the American Judicature Society. Volume 63, Number 1. June-July 1979. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1326 Ibid. 1327 “The Fight Against Canon 35.” The Green Caldron. (University of Illinois). October 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1328 Levy, Newman. “Justice Goes Tabloid.” The American Mercury. April 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1329 Fisher, Lloyd. The Press. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1330 Breslin, Jimmy. Damon Runyon: A Life. Ticknor & Fields. 1991. Page 351. 1331 Levy, Newman. “Justice Goes Tabloid.” The American Mercury. April 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1332 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know).” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1333 Ibid. 1334 Ibid. 1335 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1336 “Report of Dictograph In Jury Room Is Denied.” The New York Times. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1337 Ibid. 1338 Genz, John R. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Untitled. (Chronological List of Events of Detail). February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1339 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1340 Ibid. 1341 Fisher, Lloyd. Crowd in Court Room. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1342 Ibid. 1343 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 119. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1344 Fisher, Lloyd. The Trial. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1345 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Various Things Done By The Prosecution To Hinder And Hold Up The Defense: (Things never before done so far as I know).” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1346 Ibid. 1347 Fisher, Lloyd. Crowd in Court Room. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1348 Hallam, Oscar, Chairman, St. Paul, Minnesota, et al. Report Of Special Committee On Publicity In Criminal Trials. To The Section Of Criminal Law Of The American Bar Association. Undated. (January 1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Advanced and unedited copy. Several were sent out for comment before publication to the FBI, Governor Hoffman, AG Wilentz, etc. Some revisions were made in consideration of requests/objections). 1349 Fisher, Lloyd. Crowd in Court Room. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1350 DeGaetano, N. Detective. New Jersey State Police. Memorandum. Anticipating complaint from Warden McCrea of the Hunterdon County Jail. January 25, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1351 Ibid. 1352 Ibid. 1353 DeGaetano, N. Detective. New Jersey State Police. Memorandum. Further controversy with Warden McCrea of the Hunterdon County Jail. January 28, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1354 Ibid. 1355 Ibid. 1356 Fisher, Lloyd. Crowd in Court Room. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1357 Ibid. 1358 Fisher, Lloyd. The Trial. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1359 Hauptmann, Richard. Letter from “Richard” to “Dear Mother.” December 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1360 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 24-5. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1361 Fisher, Lloyd. The Press. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1362 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1363 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 22. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1364 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! C. Lloyd Fisher’s Story. Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 16. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1365 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 22. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1366 Lindbergh, Charles. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 202, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1367 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 22. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1368 Ibid. Pages 22-3. 1369 Ibid. Page 23. 1370 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 64. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning

Center Archives. 1371 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 124. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1372 Fisher, Lloyd. The Trial. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1373 Parker, Ellis H. Chief of Detectives, Burlington County. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. October 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1374 Moses, Paul. “Still Convinced.” Philadelphia Inquirer. March 25, 1982. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1375 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 124. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1376 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 22. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1377 Ibid. 1378 The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 1580. 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1379 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 315. 1380 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 24-5. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1381 Ibid. Page 25. 1382 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited &

Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 124. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1383 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 25. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1384 Parker, Ellis H. Chief of Detectives, Burlington County. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. October 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1385 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 80. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1386 Summation By Mr. Wilentz. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 4493, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1387 Summation By Mr. Wilentz. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 4494, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1388 Conklin, Bill. Memo to Governor. Re: Edward Reilly. Undated (January 31, 1937). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1389 “Hell of a Time.” Time Magazine. March 23, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1390 “Preacher Cries Out As Summation Ends.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1391 Ibid. 1392 “Pastor Scared Bruno More Than Wilentz’s Speech.” International News Service. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1393 Burns, Vincent G. Reverend. “Does This Confession Clear Hauptmann?” Real Detective Magazine. February 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1394 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. The Honeycomb. Doubleday & Company. 1969. Page 389. 1395 Breslin, Jimmy. Damon Runyon: A Life. Ticknor & Fields. 1991. Page 349. 1396 Carter, Boake. This Is Life. Dodge Publishing Company. 1937. Page 158-9. 1397 Haldeman-Julius, Marcet. The Lindbergh-Hauptmann Kidnap-Murder Case. Haldeman-Julius Publications. 1937. Page 95. 1398 Newspaper Clipping. “Prosecution Joyful Over Trenchard’s Charge. Paper Unknown. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1399 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: emphasis on “that” underscored by Snook). 1400 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 91. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1401 Ibid. Pages 91-2. 1402 Carter, Boake. This Is Life. Dodge Publishing Company. 1937. Page 159. 1403 Trenchard, J. The Court’s Charge. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 4510-11, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1404 Sawyer, W. O. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Identification of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Amandus Hochmuth of the Hopewell-Wertsville Road, Hopewell Township, N. J. December 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1405 Wolf, J. A. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Patrol of area by Hopewell Detail Re: Lindbergh Investigation. July 27, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1406 Fisher, Lloyd. Typed Notes. Amandus Hochmuth. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1407 Sawyer, W. O. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. (Untitled). November 28, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1408 Ibid. 1409 Sawyer, W. O. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Identification of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Amandus Hochmuth of the Hopewell-Wertsville Road, Hopewell Township, N. J. December 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1410 Hochmuth, Amandus. Statement. Made to Captain Lamb, New Jersey State Police. December 20, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1411 Hochmuth, Amandus. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 461, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1412 Hochmuth, Amandus. Statement. Made to Asst. Attorney General Robert Peacock, Captain Lamb and Lieut. Keaten. January 6, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1413 Ibid. 1414 Ibid. 1415 Ibid. 1416 Ibid. 1417 Ibid. 1418 Hochmuth, Amandus. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, pages 4467, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library.

1419 McGovern, Joseph A. Affidavit. June 25, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1420 Contenti, Joseph. Affidavit. January 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1421 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to David T. Wilentz, Esq. January 30, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1422 Hochmuth, Amandus. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 455, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1423 Hill, Ruth. Deputy Commissioner, Old Age Security Division, City of New York Department of Public Welfare. Memorandum. June 17, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Citing case entries for June 29, 1932: “partially blind, suffering from a complication of diseases,” AND August 4, 1932: “frail, …. failing eyesight due to cataracts.”) 1424 Lewis, William. Private Investigator, Meade Detective Bureau. Report. Interview with Mr. William Driver, #3 South Olden Ave., Trenton, New Jersey, regarding his knowledge of Amandus Hochmuth’s poor eyesight. March 21, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1425 Ibid. 1426 Hesse, Adolph William. Statement. Made to William Lewis, New Jersey State Police. February 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1427 Stoddard, Russell. Letter from Russell (Hop) Stoddard to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1428 Thomas, W. H. Letter from W. H. Thomas to Mr. Edward J. Reilly. April 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1429 Ibid. 1430 Thomas, W. H. Letter from W. H. Thomas to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman.

April 9, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1431 Wallace, John. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. Memorandum. December 14, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1432 Ibid. 1433 Ibid. 1434 Wallace, John. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. Letter from Lieut. John Wallace to Governor Hoffman. December 14, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1435 Hochmuth, Amandus. Question & Answer Session. December 15, 1937. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Document refers to this as “testimony.”) 1436 Ibid. 1437 Ibid. 1438 Ibid. 1439 Ibid. 1440 “Hopeful Reilly Sang in Court Before Verdict.” The Washington Post. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1441 Official Minutes. Minutes of the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Indictment for “Murder.” Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1442 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1443 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. The Honeycomb. Doubleday & Company. 1969. Page 390.

1444 Levy, Newman. “Justice Goes Tabloid.” The American Mercury. April 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1445 Ibid. 1446 Kilgallen, James L. “Hundreds Changed Hands as Jury Decided Lot of German Machine Gunner.” International News Service. March 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1447 Breslin, Jimmy. Damon Runyon: A Life. Ticknor & Fields. 1991. Page 350. 1448 “AP: A ‘Break’ in the Greatest Story of Newspaper History.” News-Week. February 23, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1449 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. The Honeycomb. Doubleday & Company. 1969. Page 390. 1450 Ibid. Page 392. 1451 “AP: A ‘Break’ in the Greatest Story of Newspaper History.” News-Week. February 23, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1452 Morris, Joe Alex. Deadline Every Minute The Story Of The United Press. Doubleday & Company. 1957. Page 189. 1453 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1454 “Participants Recall Bizarre Lindbergh Kidnapping Trial.” The New York Times. March 4, 1973. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1455 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 337. 1456 Ibid. Page 338.

1457 Conway, Robert. Letter from Robert Conway to The Editor of the Saturday Review. August 23, 1961. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1458 Robinson, Grace. Notes. “As Bob related to me and also from memory – I was there.” February 23, 1968. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1459 Ibid. 1460 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1461 “Sheriff John Curtiss Becomes Famous; His Appearance, Shout Presage Hauptmann Jury Return.” Daily Illini. February 14, 1935. Illinois Digital Newspaper Collections. University of Illinois. 1462 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1463 Ferris, John. Letter from Jack Ferris to Bob Conway. September 1, 1961. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1464 Robinson, Grace. Notes. “As Bob related to me and also from memory – I was there.” February 23, 1968. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1465 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1466 Morris, Joe Alex. Deadline Every Minute The Story Of The United Press. Doubleday & Company. 1957. Page 189. 1467 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 338. 1468 Gramling, Oliver. 1940. AP: The Story of the News. Farrar & Rinehart Inc. page 400. 1469 Smith, A. L. Lieutenant, New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police

Report. Guard Detail, Flemington Jail. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1470 Official Minutes. Minutes of the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Indictment for “Murder.” Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1471 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1472 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 339. 1473 Robinson, Grace. Notes. “As Bob related to me and also from memory – I was there.” February 23, 1968. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1474 Ibid. 1475 Ibid. 1476 “Patrick.” Typed Message. Patrick to Mr. A. W. Crawford. February 13, 1935. American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. 1477 Gramling, Oliver. 1940. AP: The Story of the News. Farrar & Rinehart Inc. pages 399-400. 1478 Ibid. Page 401. 1479 “The World’s Most Costly Blunders.” Modern Mechanix. June 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1480 Gramling, Oliver. 1940. AP: The Story of the News. Farrar & Rinehart Inc. pages 405. 1481 Ibid. 1482 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935.

1483 “The Hauptmann Verdict.” The Washington Post. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1484 Morris, Joe Alex. Deadline Every Minute The Story Of The United Press. Doubleday & Company. 1957. Page 188. 1485 Ibid. Page 190. 1486 Kilgallen, James. “How Waiting World Got First Correct News Of Doom of Hauptmann.” International News Service. March 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1487 Ibid. 1488 Ibid. 1489 Official Minutes. Minutes of the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Indictment for “Murder.” Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1490 Verdict. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 7886. 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1491 Ibid. (Note: Sources differ as to the exact minute when this verdict was spoken). 1492 Ibid. 1493 “The Hauptmann Verdict.” The Washington Post. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1494 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1495 Verdict. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 7889. 1935. New Jersey State Law Library.

1496 Ibid. Page 7891-A. 1497 “Hauptmann Will Fight Electric Chair Sentence.” Chester Times. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1498 Verdict. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 7894. 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1499 “Hauptmann Will Fight Electric Chair Sentence.” Chester Times. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1500 Ibid. 1501 Wixen, Joan Saunders. “I Covered The Lindbergh Kidnapping.” Modern Maturity. April-May 1982. Page. 37. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1502 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. Western Union from Adela Rogers St. Johns to David T. Wilentz. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1503 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. The Honeycomb. Doubleday & Company. 1969. Page 389. 1504 Ibid. Page 391. 1505 Ibid. Page 392. 1506 Ibid. Page 390. 1507 St. Johns, Adela Rogers. Western Union from Adela Rogers St. Johns to David T. Wilentz. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1508 Wilentz, Dave. Western Union to Adela Rogers St. John. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1509 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center

Archives. 1510 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 72. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1511 “Foreman of Jury 25 Years in Same Job; Nine of the First Ten Chosen Have Families.” The New York Times. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: The ages of the of the Jury tends to vary from source to source.) 1512 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1513 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 72. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1514 Ibid. (Note: citing an interview with Robert Cravatt on February 11, 1951. This information about Walton is coming from Cravatt). 1515 Ibid. 1516 Ibid. 1517 Ibid. Page 73. (Note: citing an interview with Charles Walton on February 11, 1951). 1518 Hawke, George G. 1951 Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 74. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1519 Ibid. (Note: citing an interview with Lloyd Fisher on February 11, 1951). 1520 Newspaper Clipping. United Press. February 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1521 “Offer For 12 To Appear On Stage Tour Confirmed By Foreman.” New York Evening Journal. February 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1522 “Stage Offer For Jurors.” The New York Times. February 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1523 Whiting, L. D. Letter from L. D. Whiting to Mr. Charles Walton Sr. February 19, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1524 Walton, Charles. Foreman. Letter from Charles Walton to Capt. Lamb. February 25, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1525 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1526 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 83. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Verna Snyder on February 16, 1951. This information about Walton is coming from Snyder). 1527 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: This was a series and the date when it began. I do not have the dates of each individual “chapter” in the series.) 1528 Ibid. (Note: Walton was wrong. After her suicide they actually did as I will demonstrate in the coming pages.) 1529 Ibid. 1530 Levitt, Robert D. “3 or 4 Jurymen For Bruno Doom.” New York City Journal. December 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1531 Press Release. From Governor Hoffman’s Office. March 28, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (One example). 1532 Downs, Kenneth T. “Woman Juror On Bruno Case In Talk On Verdict.” International News Service. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives

1533 “10 of Hauptmann Jury Selected on First Day of Trial.” The Washington Post. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1534 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1535 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1536 Ibid. 1537 Ibid. 1538 “Third Hauptmann Juror Dies.” The New York Times. January 22, 1941. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1539 “Foreman of Jury 25 Years in Same Job; Nine of the First Ten Chosen Have Families.” The New York Times. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1540 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1541 Ibid. 1542 Snyder, Verna. Voir Dire Examination. The State vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, On Indictment for Murder, Jury Selection. December Term, 1934. Pages 68-69. January 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1543 O’Brien, P. J. The Lindberghs: The Story of a Distinguished Family. International Press. 1935. Page 300. 1544 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1545 “Troubles of Jurors Given Close Attention.” Winona Republic-Herald. January 31, 1935. Darrell W. Krueger Library, Winona State University.

1546 Ibid. 1547 “Two Jurors Are Ill 261-Lb. Woman Ate Too Much.” Newspaper Clipping - Newspaper Unknown. January 26, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1548 “Juror 3 Doffs Her Coat.” The New York Times. January 17, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1549 “Juror’s Nerves Upset.” The New York Times. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1550 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1551 Robbins, Albert H. “The Hauptmann Trial In The Light Of English Criminal Procedure.” American Bar Association Journal. Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1935. Page 304. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1552 O’Brien, P. J. The Lindberghs: The Story of a Distinguished Family. International Press. 1935. Page 123. 1553 Thompson, C. V. R. I Lost My English Accent. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. 1939. Page 150. 1554 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1555 Snyder, Mrs. Verna. “I Sat In Judgement.” Woman Today Magazine. May 1935. Sam Bornstein Collection. 1556 Ibid. 1557 Ibid. 1558 Downs, Kenneth T. “Woman Juror On Bruno Case In Talk On Verdict.” International News Service. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police

Museum and Learning Center Archives 1559 Ibid. 1560 Ibid. 1561 “Foreman of Jury 25 Years in Same Job; Nine of the First Ten Chosen Have Families.” The New York Times. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1562 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1563 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 76. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Charles Snyder on February 4, 1951). 1564 Ibid. Page 83. 1565 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1566 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1567 Ibid. 1568 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1569 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1570 (Note: Of course, none of the Jury knew Hochmuth was actually “partially blind” and this statement seems to prove influence by Judge Trenchard’s charge where Hochmuth was mentioned.)

1571 Ibid. 1572 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1573 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1574 Ibid. 1575 Ibid. 1576 Ibid. 1577 “Former Hauptmann Juror at ESNA.” ESNA News. February 13, 1944. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1578 Ibid. 1579 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1580 Ibid. 1581 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 79. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1582 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1583 Ibid. 1584 Smith, Elmer. Sec. to the Comm. Letter from Elmer Smith to The Attorney General of New Jersey. March 11, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1585 “Hauptmann Jurors Paid $126 Apiece.” The Washington Post. February 15,

1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1586 Lopez, Adrian. “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” American Detective Magazine. April 1935. Sam Bornstein Collection. 1587 Downs, Kenneth T. “Woman Juror On Bruno Case In Talk On Verdict.” International News Service. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1588 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1589 Ibid. 1590 Whipple, Sidney B. The Lindbergh Crime. Blue Ribbon Books. 1935. Page 249. 1591 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1592 Ibid. 1593 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1594 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 72. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Robert Cravatt on February 11, 1951). 1595 Ibid. 1596 Ibid. Page 81. 1597 Hawke, George G. (1951) Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 83. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1598 “Jurors Hold A Reunion.” The New York Times. April 14, 1935. New

Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1599 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1600 “Word Portraits of Bruno Jurors.” Newspaper Clipping. Paper Unknown. February 13, (1935). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1601 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1602 Ibid. 1603 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1604 Ibid. 1605 Ibid. 1606 Ibid. 1607 Ibid. 1608 Levitt, Robert D. “3 or 4 Jurymen For Bruno Doom.” New York City Journal. December 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1609 Downs, Kenneth T. “Woman Juror On Bruno Case In Talk On Verdict.” International News Service. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1610 “Hauptmann Juror Dies Under Train in N. J.” The Washington Post. May 9, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1611 “Hunterdon County Resident.” Anonymous Letter. November 22, 1937. Annandale, N. J. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1612 Ibid. 1613 “Foreman of Jury 25 Years in Same Job; Nine of the First Ten Chosen Have Families.” The New York Times. January 3, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1614 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1615 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1616 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1617 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1618 Ibid. 1619 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 73. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with George Voorhees on January 30, 1951). 1620 “Hauptmann Jury Peeved over Shakespearean Books.” Chester Times. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1621 Ibid. 1622 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 83. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1623 Ibid. Page 87. (Note: citing an interview with George Voorhees on January 30, 1951). 1624 Ibid. Page 84.

1625 Levitt, Robert D. “3 or 4 Jurymen For Bruno Doom.” New York City Journal. December 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1626 Ibid. 1627 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1628 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1629 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1630 Sullivan, Harold W. Trial By Newspaper. The Patriot Press. 1961. Page 126. 1631 “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” New York Journal. June 24, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1632 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 71. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1633 Ibid. Page 82. (Note: citing an interview with May Brelsford on January 29, 1951). 1634 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1635 Ibid. 1636 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 82. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with May Brelsford on January 29, 1951). 1637 Ibid. Page 87.

1638 O’Brien, P. J. The Lindberghs: The Story of a Distinguished Family. International Press. 1935. Page 315. 1639 Downs, Kenneth T. “Woman Juror On Bruno Case In Talk On Verdict.” International News Service. February 29, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1640 Robertson, John. Letter from John Robertson to Colonel Pagano. October 16, 1981. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1641 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1642 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1643 “Juror “No. 11” Improved.” Newspaper Clipping. (U5). February 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1644 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 77. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Lloyd Fisher on February 11, 1951). 1645 “Hauptmann Jury Peeved over Shakespearian Books.” Chester Times. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1646 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1647 “Hauptmann Juror Dies.” The New York Times. December 30, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1648 New Jersey State Police Document. Pettit Jury Information. Undated. Unsigned. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1649 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 79. New Jersey State Police Museum and

Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Howard Biggs on February 4, 1951). 1650 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 80. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1651 “Jury Explains About Verdict.” United Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1652 Ibid. 1653 Fisher, Lloyd. Jury. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1654 “Jury Explains About Verdict.” United Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1655 See TDC Volume I. Pages 331-4. 1656 See TDC Volume II. Page 201. 1657 “Jury Explains About Verdict.” United Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1658 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1659 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 76. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Howard Biggs on February 4, 1951). 1660 Levitt, Robert D. “3 or 4 Jurymen For Bruno Doom.” New York City Journal. December 9, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1661 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited &

Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 122. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1662 Walker, Stanley. Mrs. Astor’s Horse. Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1935. Page 155. 1663 Ibid. Pages 154-5. 1664 Parker, Ellis H. Chief of Detectives, Burlington County. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. October 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1665 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 80. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1666 “Hauptmann Vigorously Re-Asserts Innocence.” Associated Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1667 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 81. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1668 Ibid. 1669 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. September 3, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1670 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 81. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1671 Breslin, Jimmy. Damon Runyon: A Life. Ticknor & Fields. 1991. Page 349. 1672 Reilly was paid $7500. 1673 Conklin, William S. Memorandum To Governor Harold Hoffman. April

29, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1674 Broderick, J. L. “As Trial Draws To End Reporters See Little Chance of Chair For Hauptmann.” The Daily Princeton. February 11, 1935. Larry DuPraz Digital Archives, Princeton University Library. 1675 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1676 Ibid. 1677 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Things that Hauptmann complained of and things which he insisted should indicate his innocence.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1678 Ibid. 1679 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 85. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1680 Genz, John R. Trooper. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Untitled. (Chronological List of Events of Detail). February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1681 Lopez, Adrian. “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” American Detective Magazine. April 1935. Sam Bornstein Collection. (Note: Just one example of many.) 1682 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 84. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Charles Snyder on February 4, 1951). 1683 “Hauptmann Jurors Tell What Let To Conviction At Flemington.” Newark Evening News. January 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1684 Ibid.

1685 “Bruno Jury To “Get Even” For Treatment During 42 Newsless Days During Case.” United Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1686 “Hauptmann Jury Peeved over Shakespearian Books.” Chester Times. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1687 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1688 “Hauptmann Jury Is Reported As Taking Half Dozen Ballots.” Associated Press. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1689 Ibid. 1690 “Bachelor Last Member To Capitulate.” International News Service. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1691 “Plan Further Fight For Hauptmann.” The Corsicana Daily Sun. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1692 Lopez, Adrian. “Why We Convicted Hauptmann.” American Detective Magazine. April 1935. Sam Bornstein Collection. 1693 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1694 Ibid. 1695 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 85. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Charles Snyder on February 4, 1951). 1696 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers.

March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1697 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 86. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1698 Snook, Russel. Letter from Russel Snook to Mr. James Clark Sellers. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1699 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Pages 86-7. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1700 Ibid. Page 85. 1701 Fuerst, Liz. “Jury Foreman Discusses Hauptmann Trial.” Hunterdon County Democrat. March 5, 1976. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1702 Ibid. (Note: I believe what he meant here was the deliberation over life or death.) 1703 “Lindbergh Juror Still Sure Hauptmann Was Guilty.” The Orlando Sentinel. April 4, 1989. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1704 Ibid. 1705 “They Picked Ethel Stockton, A Legal Secretary Living in Obscurity, For A Role In One Of The Great American Dramas.” Ocala Star-Banner. May 29, 1999. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1706 “Flemington: 300 Reporters, 200 Wires, “Minerva,” 750,000 Words Daily: Hauptmann Trial.” News-Week. December 29, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1707 Ibid.

1708 “Hauptmann Trial Takes Center of Stage.” The Literary Digest. January 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1709 Walker, Stanley. Mrs. Astor’s Horse. Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1935. Page 150. 1710 Ibid. 1711 “Hauptmann Trial Takes Center of Stage.” The Literary Digest. January 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1712 Walker, Stanley. Mrs. Astor’s Horse. Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1935. Page 150. 1713 Ibid. 1714 Fisher, Lloyd. The Trial. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1715 Fisher, Lloyd. Crowd in Court Room. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1716 Walker, Stanley. Mrs. Astor’s Horse. Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1935. Page 151. 1717 “Court Jam.” The New York Daily Mirror. January 22, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1718 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 119. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1719 “Justice Aided By Press Asserts James Kilgallen.” The Notre Dame Scholastic. Vol 69, Number 25. May 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1720 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 319.

1721 Ibid. Page 315. 1722 Donoghue, W. J. Newspaper Clipping. “Sheriff Guards Against Jury Debate Leak.” Paper Unknown. February 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1723 Ibid. 1724 Ibid. 1725 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 95. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1726 Ibid. 1727 “John Henry Curtiss Hauptmann’s Keeper.” The New York Times. June 6, 1940. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1728 Smith, A. L. Lieutenant, New Jersey State Police. Memo from A. L. Smith to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1729 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 339. 1730 O’Brien, P. J. The Lindberghs: The Story of a Distinguished Family. International Press. 1935. Page 203. 1731 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 91. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1732 “Hauptmann Case Over.” Associated Press. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1733 Lawrence, James Y. “Hauptmann Breaks Down, Weeps After Hearing Sentence.” Associated Press. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1734 “Hauptmann To Die In Chair.” Associated Press. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1735 O’Brien, P. J. The Lindberghs: The Story of a Distinguished Family. International Press. 1935. Page 297. 1736 Smith, A. L. Lieutenant, New Jersey State Police. Memo from A. L. Smith to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1737 “Reilly Balked On Confession By Hauptmann.” Chester Times. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1738 “Hauptmann Sentenced To Die Week of March 18 For Lindbergh Murder.” Hunterdon County Democrat. February 14, 1935. 1739 “Hauptmann Will Fight Electric Chair Sentence.” Chester Times. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1740 Smith, A. L. Lieutenant, New Jersey State Police. Memo from A. L. Smith to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. February 14, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1741 Ibid. 1742 “Sheriff Fears Mob Violence On Hauptmann.” Newspaper Clipping. Paper Unknown. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1743 Ibid. 1744 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume III. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 11. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1745 Hauptmann, Richard. Letter from “Richard” to “Dear Mother.” December 27, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1746 Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 2681, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library.

1747 Conklin, Bill. Memo to Governor. February 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1748 “Hauptmann Vigorously Re-Asserts Innocence.” Associated Press. February 15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1749 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 124. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1750 Ibid. Page 123. 1751 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Insert - No Page #. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1752 Walker, Stanley. Mrs. Astor’s Horse. Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1935. Page 148. 1753 Fisher, Lloyd. The Press. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1754 Whipple, Sidney B. 1935. The Lindbergh Crime. New York: Blue Ribbon Books. Page 315. 1755 Parker, Ellis H. Chief of Detectives, Burlington County. Letter from Ellis H. Parker to His Excellency, Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. October 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1756 Ibid. 1757 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 15. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1758 Ibid. 1759 Ibid. Page 16.

1760 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 3456, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1761 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume III. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 7. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1762 Ibid. Page 8. 1763 Mielk, Ewald. Testimony. The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer, page 4087, 1935. New Jersey State Law Library. 1764 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume III. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 9. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1765 Ibid. 1766 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Special Bulletin. For Immediate Release. June 10, 1932. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1767 Fisher, Lloyd. The Press. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1768 Ibid. 1769 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume III. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 11-12. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1770 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! C. Lloyd Fisher’s Story. Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 18. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1771 Ibid. 1772 Ibid. 1773 Hicks, Lt. Robert Waverly. Unpublished Manuscript (Handwritten). Synopsis. Undated. Page 8. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning

Center Archives. 1774 Hoffman, Harold. There Is More To Be Told. The Lindbergh-Hauptmann Questions Yet Unanswered. Says Former Governor Harold G. Hoffman. Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1938. Unedited. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1775 Fisher, Lloyd. Letter from Lloyd Fisher to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 24, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1776 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Press Release. February 13, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1777 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, Colonel and Superintendent, New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to Alexander F. Ormsby. May 21, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1778 “Cost of Hauptmann Case.” The Literary Digest. February 23, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1779 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! Volume II. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1780 Hoffman, Harold. There Is More To Be Told. The Lindbergh-Hauptmann Questions Yet Unanswered. Says Former Governor Harold G. Hoffman. Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1938. Unedited. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1781 Fisher, Lloyd. The Press. Undated & Unpublished Manuscript. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1782 Ibid. 1783 “Bruno Hauptmann Arrives At New Death Cell Home.” Associated Press. February 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1784 “Trip To Trenton Worries Sheriff.” International News Service. February

15, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1785 Smith, A. L. Lieutenant, New Jersey State Police. Memo from A. L. Smith to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. February 16, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1786 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 99. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1787 Ibid. 1788 Ibid. Page 100. 1789 Ibid. Page 102. 1790 “Hauptmann Drops Reilly As Counsel.” The New York Times. April 4, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1791 Ibid. 1792 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 102. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1793 “Reilly Refuses To Deny Bruno Is Extortionist.” The Washington Post. April 5, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1794 Ibid. 1795 Hauptmann, Anna. Unpublished Manuscript. Story of Anna Hauptmann. September 26, 1935. Page 124. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Mannfried’s name is spelled several different ways throughout the source material. The most common are “Manfred” and “Manfried.” I will spell the name as written in whatever source I have used.) 1796 Newspaper Clipping. “Hauptmann Good Soldier In Prison.” Associated Press. February 23, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1797 Newspaper Clipping. “Hauptmann Unshaken By Official Notice Of Death Chair Fate.” Associated Press. January 7, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1798 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 45. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1799 Ibid. Page 48. 1800 Ibid. 1801 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1802 Ibid. 1803 Ibid. 1804 Ibid. 1805 New Jersey State Prison Report. Report From Center - Bruno Richard Hauptmann, #17400. 10:00 A. M. – 1:30 P. M. April 2, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1806 New Jersey State Prison Report. Report From Center - Bruno Richard Hauptmann, #17400. 9:30 A. M. April 3, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1807 Ibid. 1808 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1809 Bleam, I. C. Prison Clerk, New Jersey State Prison. Death House Menu, “Last meal served to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, #17400, April 3, 1936”. April 3, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1810 Harmon, Philip. Untitled Newspaper Clipping (Copy). Newark Ledger.

April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1811 “A Page From a 1930s Notebook.” The Washington Post. March 1, 1976. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1812 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 201. (Note: Written by Runyon on April 11, 1936). 1813 “Hauptmann Dies For Lindbergh Baby Murder.” Associated Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1814 “Hicks’ Own Story Of The Execution.” Washington Herald. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1815 “Hauptmann Dies For Lindbergh Baby Murder.” Associated Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1816 Ibid. 1817 Elliott, Robert G. 1940. Agent of Death. E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc. Pages 195-6. 1818 Mott, Frank Luther. 1937. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 203. 1819 Keller, Allan. “Limit To Sorrow.” World-Telegram. April 4, 1966. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1820 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1821 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1822 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Things that Hauptmann complained of and things which he insisted should indicate his innocence.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1823 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1824 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. “Things that Hauptmann complained of and things which he insisted should indicate his innocence.” Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1825 Fisher, Lloyd. Unpublished Document. Untitled. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1826 Ibid. 1827 Hoffman, Harold Giles. Notes (Handwritten). Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1828 “He Dies In Chair.” Newspaper Clipping. United Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Sources for some of the information in this article appears to have come from the Guards.) 1829 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 69. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1830 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 204. 1831 Runyon, Damon. “Bruno Dies in Chair.” New York American. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1832 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 204. 1833 Runyon, Damon. “Bruno Dies in Chair.” New York American. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1834 Ibid. 1835 Folliard, Edward. T. “Witness to an Execution.” The Washington Post.” July 17, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1836 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1837 Folliard, Edward. T. “Witness to an Execution.” The Washington Post.” July 17, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1838 Kilgallen, James L. Newspaper Clipping. International News Service. March 25, 195(6)? New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1839 “Hicks’ Own Story Of The Execution.” Washington Herald. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1840 Harmon, Philip. Untitled Newspaper Clipping (Copy). Newark Ledger. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1841 Ibid. 1842 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1843 “Justice Aided By Press Asserts James Kilgallen.” The Notre Dame Scholastic. Vol 69, Number 25. May 15, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1844 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 205. 1845 Folliard, Edward. T. “Witness to an Execution.” The Washington Post.” July 17, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1846 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1847 Elliott, Robert G. 1940. Agent of Death. E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc. Pages 201.

1848 Cooper, Courtney Ryley. 1937. Here’s To Crime. Little, Brown & Company. Pages 3-4. 1849 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1850 Ibid. 1851 Ibid. 1852 Kilgallen, James L. Newspaper Clipping. International News Service. March 25, 195(6)? New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1853 Elliott, Robert G. 1940. Agent of Death. E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc. Pages 201-2. 1854 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 67. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1855 Dale, James F. Newspaper Clipping (Copy). Newark Evening News. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1856 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1857 Staff Correspondence. Newark Star-Eagle. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1858 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1859 Keller, Allan. “The Baby is Found – Dead!” American History Illustrated. May 1975. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1860 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1861 Ibid. 1862 “He Dies In Chair.” Newspaper Clipping. United Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Sources for some of the information in this article appears to have come from the Guards.) 1863 “Hicks’ Own Story Of The Execution.” Washington Herald. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1864 Mitchell, Charles. “Did Hauptmann Die in the Chair?” Daring Detective Magazine. June 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1865 Ibid. 1866 Ibid. 1867 Folliard, Edward. T. “Witness to an Execution.” The Washington Post.” July 17, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1868 Staff Correspondence. Newark Star-Eagle. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1869 “Hauptmann Dies For Lindbergh Baby Murder.” Associated Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1870 Hoffman, Harold Giles. The Crime - The Case - The Challenge (What Was Wrong with the Lindbergh Case?), Original Manuscript: Unedited & Uncorrected, circa 1937. Page 70. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1871 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 204. 1872 Folliard, Edward. T. “Witness to an Execution.” The Washington Post.” July 17, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1873 Mott, Frank Luther. Headlining America. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1937. “Hauptmann Execution,” by Damon Runyon. Page 204. 1874 Kilgallen, James L. Newspaper Clipping. International News Service. March 25, 195(6)? New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1875 Ibid. 1876 “Hauptmann Dies For Lindbergh Baby Murder.” Associated Press. April 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1877 Blackman, Samuel G. “No New Evidence Uncovered After 20 Years To Change Verdict That Hauptmann Was Lindbergh Kidnaper.” Associated Press. February 28, 195(5)? New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1878 “Wilentz Blames Hauptmann Alone.” The New York Times. February 1, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1879 See TDC Volume II, page 571. 1880 Newspaper Clipping. “Ransom Phase of Lindbergh Kidnaping is Still Unsettled; Bills May Be Stored Away.” Associated Press. March 2, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1881 Ibid. 1882 Ibid. 1883 Seery, W. F. Special Agent. Division of Investigation. United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Unknown Subjects. Kidnaping and Murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. August 28, 1934. National Archives at College Park Maryland. (Note: The FBI had changed its name from USBOI to DOI by this time but the heading on this report still says “United States Bureau of Investigation.”) 1884 Ibid. 1885 Ibid.

1886 See TDC Volume II, page 572-3. 1887 “New Ransom Bills In Lindbergh Case Trailed By Police.” New York Times. October 1, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1888 Campbell, C. J. Sgt. New Jersey State Police. Special Report of Investigation. Bank Interviews (Lindbergh case). October 4, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1889 Horn, William H. Det. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation at Washington, D. C., concerning certain Lindbergh Ransom bill now in custody of the U.S. Treasury Department, re. Lindbergh Case, re. previous Report by the undersigned under date of May 14th, 1936. May 20, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1890 Report. “Copy of U.S. Department Of Justice Report.” Undated. Located in the NJSP Files on Lindbergh Kidnapping Ransom Money. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1891 Ibid. 1892 Leslie, H. C. Special Agent. Division of Investigation. United States Bureau of Investigation Report. Bruno Richard Hauptmann, with alias. Unknown Subjects. October 5, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1893 Purdy, Robert “Rab.” Internet Work. “Who Helped Hauptmann (Turchiarelli).” March 5, 2006. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com 1894 Horn, William H. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Investigation concerning a recovered $20.00 Gold Certificate, U.S. Currency, which is part of the Lindbergh Ransom money. December 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1895 Log of Ransom Money Investigations. Handwritten. “U.S. Department Of Justice Report.” Undated. Located in the NJSP Files on Lindbergh Kidnapping Ransom Money. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1896 Horn, William H. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of Investigation concerning a recovered $20.00 Gold Certificate, U.S. Currency, which is part of the Lindbergh Ransom money. December 19, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1897 Ibid. 1898 Haussling, E. A. Det. Sgt. N. J. State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Investigation of two $20.00 Gold Certificates of the Lindbergh Ransom Money (A. 37917773 and A. 37451487-A) and alleged $5.00 Federal Reserve Note, located at the Federal Reserve Bank, N.Y.C. May 7, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: That included one $1000, six $100, one $50, and six $20 gold certificates as coming from Friedman.) 1899 Ibid. 1900 Ibid. 1901 Ibid. 1902 Sharp, James R. Special Agent. Memo to S A C Harvey. January 12, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1903 Ibid. 1904 Keaten, Arthur T. Lieut. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Article appearing in the “American Banker,” the only daily banking newspaper, re: Lindbergh Ransom Money appearing in Banks. February 25, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: see attached article). 1905 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Postal Telegraph from John Edgar Hoover to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. March 28, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1906 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Telegram from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to J. Edgar Hoover. March 29, 1935. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.

1907 Hoffman, Harold G. Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. January 26, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1908 Hoffman, Harold G. Testimony. In the Matter of Paul Wendel, Mercer County Grand Jury. April 2, 1936. Pages 30-1. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1909 Acting Assistant Treasurer. Treasury Department. Office of Treasurer of the United States. Memorandum For Lieut. Robert W. Hicks. January 9, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Wayne Chatfield Taylor was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury from 1936 to 1939 but I do not believe this is his signature and instead was whoever acted in this position before his appointment.) 1910 As I’ve pointed out in my other volumes concerning the “in-fighting” among the NJSP, NYPD, and FBI, the Hoffman Investigation had its own problems along these lines. For example, because of Meade’s previous relationship with Hauck, Ellis Parker did not trust him and refused to share or associate with him. Another example would be that Leon Ho-age did not trust Jesse Pelletreau because he believed he could not be trusted and was leaking everything to the press, etc. etc. etc. 1911 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Letter from John Edgar Hoover to Honorable David T. Wilentz. January 17, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1912 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Letter from John Edgar Hoover to Honorable David T. Wilentz. February 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1913 Lamb, J. J. Captain. New Jersey State Police. Letter from J. J. Lamb to J. Edgar Hoover. February 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives 1914 Meade, Leo, And Mustoe, William S. Memo. For the information of HGH. February 10, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1915 Meade, Leo And Mustoe, William S. Memo. For the information of HGH.

February 18, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1916 Ibid. 1917 Newspaper Clipping. “Lindbergh Ransom Note Found Here.” Paper Unknown. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1918 Newspaper Clipping. “Lindbergh Ransom Bill Said to Have Been ed in Ellenville.” Paper Unknown. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1919 Ibid. 1920 Goldberg, Rae. Letter from Mrs. Rae Goldberg to “Dear Sir.” March 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1921 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Letter from John Edgar Hoover to Honorable David T. Wilentz. April 16, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1922 Wilentz, David. Attorney General. Letter from David Wilentz to Honorable J. Edgar Hoover. April 20, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1923 “Missing Lindbergh Ransom Notes Continue to Mystify Searchers.” Oregon-Chicago Tribune Leased Wire. April 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1924 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to My dear Director Hoover. May 1, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1925 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Letter from John Edgar Hoover to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf. May 13, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1926 Schwarzkopf, H. Norman. Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from H. Norman Schwarzkopf to My dear Governor. May 12,

1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1927 Horn, William H. Det. Corp. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation concerning three alleged Lindbergh Ransom bills, viz: one $20.00 Gold Certificate and two $5.00 Federal Reserve Notes. May 14, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1928 Horn, William H. Det. l. NJSP. New Jersey State Police Report. Report of investigation at Washington, D. C., concerning certain Lindbergh Ransom bill now in custody of the U.S. Treasury Department, re. Lindbergh Case, re. previous Report by the undersigned under date of May 14th, 1936. May 20, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1929 Ibid. 1930 Kimberling, Mark O. Colonel. Principal Keeper. New Jersey State Prison. Letter from Mark O. Kimberling to Hon. Harold G. Hoffman. January 25, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1931 Hoover, John Edgar. Director. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Letter from J. E. Hoover to Colonel Mark O. Kimberling. May 17, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1932 Ibid. 1933 Kimberling, Mark O. Colonel and Superintendent. New Jersey State Police. Letter from Mark O. Kimberling to Sergeant W. M. Nail. May 20, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1934 Nail, W. M. Sergeant. North Carolina State Highway Patrol. Letter from W. M. Nail to Colonel Mark O. Kimberling. May 23, 1938. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1935 Nicol, William O. Captain. New Jersey State Police. New Jersey State Police Report. Twenty dollar gold note received at the National State Bank of Elizabeth, N. J. June 5, 1939. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1936 Hoffman, Harold G. Testimony. In the Matter of Paul Wendel, Mercer County Grand Jury. April 2, 1936. Pages 35-6. New Jersey State Police Museum

and Learning Center Archives. 1937 Hoffman, Harold. “Statement.” (Rough Draft of April 6, 1936). New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1938 Hoffman, Harold G., Governor of New Jersey. Statement. April 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1939 Ibid. 1940 Hoffman, Harold G. Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to John E. Lambeth. April 6, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1941 Hoffman, Harold G. Governor. Letter from Harold G. Hoffman to Reverend Karl G. Kumm. June 4, 1936. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1942 Hoffman, Harold. Transcript. Gabriel Heatter. Undated. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1943 Ibid. 1944 Blackman, Samuel G. “No New Evidence Uncovered After 20 Years To Change Verdict That Hauptmann Was Lindbergh Kidnaper.” Associated Press. February 28, 195(5)? New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1945 Fisher, C. Lloyd. Unpublished Manuscript. Untitled. Undated. Page 1. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: Although untitled, this is one of his “I Appeal” manuscripts). 1946 Typed Transcript. “NORM YES HERES SOMETHING FOR U.” November 15, 1934. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1947 Ibid. 1948 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! C. Lloyd Fisher’s Story. Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 20. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning

Center Archives. 1949 Hawke, George G. 1951. Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial. Princeton University Senior Thesis. Page 70. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Note: citing an interview with Lloyd Fisher on February 11, 1951). 1950 Ibid. 1951 Fisher, Lloyd. I Appeal! C. Lloyd Fisher’s Story. Volume I. Unpublished Manuscript. Undated. Page 19. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. 1952 Falzini, Mark W. (2008). Their Fifteen Minutes. Iuniverse Inc. Page 159. 1953 Wagner, Robert F. Letter to the Editor. Undated Clipping (1985?). Hunterdon Country Democrat. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. (Wagner worked for the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles throughout the 1940s and was a member of the PBA). 1954 Blackman, Samuel G. Newspaper Clipping. The Free Lance-Star. February 26, 1972. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives.