Evening star., 1935-02-08
ATTACK ON LADDER
IS DEFENSE HOPE
Bruno Hears Witness Den,
His Wood Matched
Kidnap Rails.
Ry the Associated Press.

=
PENNINGTON, N. j., February g.
Bruno Richard Hauptmann'S defense,
in the eleventh hour of its case, bat
tied hard in yesterdays session to
trump the States ace testimony that
all but put the Lindbergh kidnap lad
der in the accused mans hands.
Charles A. De Bisschop, a Water
bury, Conn, contractor, house builder
and road builder. came to the stand
near the end of the session to assert
that the rail in the kidnap ladder was
a board entirely different from that IN
Hauptmann's attic.
ct would say they are an entirely
different board" De Bisschop told the
Jury trying Hauptmann for the Lind
bergh babys murder,
He was allowed to testify after
prosecutors had leveled sharp attack
on his qualifications, based largely
upon his experience in New England
lumber mills.
Attorney General David T. Wilent2
drew from the witness that his en-
tire study of the ladder and connected
exhibits took only about three hours
Koehler Is Present.
The witness said also he had looked
only at the one rail and that ne
didn't know what the ladder rungs
were made of.
When court adjourned De Blsschop
still was on the stand undergoing
cross examination.
Sitting at the States counsel table
listening to the BiSschop testimony
was Arthur Koehler, the Federal Wooc
technologist, who had testlted 1ol
the prosecution that the ladder raj
was sawed from the floor in the
Hauptmann attic.
Thus the defense closed session
approaching the end of the case with
a renewal of its attack on the expert
testimony of Koehler.
DR. Erastus M. Hudson, New YORK
criminologist by hobby, opened tne
session with his insistence he saw only
one nail hole in the kidnap laddei
when he first examined 1t 10 days
after the kidnapping,
He refused to alter his beliefs u
the face of photographs Wilentz sale
we're taken after the ladder was touno
and which showed four nail holes
Koehler testified matched those II
the broken beam Of Hauptmann's attlc
Reilly had stated unqualifiedly tha'
the extra holes had been placed there
deliberately"
Painter Offers Alibi.
The days parade of witnesses In
cluded:
Walter Manley, a Bronx c. w A
painter, who said he came from slcE
bed to testify he saw Hauptmanr
drinking coffee in the Frederickser
Bakery in the Bronx the night OF the
kidnapping.
Karl Henkel. husband of tht
sprightly blond Gerta, who said III
never saw anything improper between
his wife and Hauptmann, who dranE
coffee together.
Mrs. Augusta Hile, Mrs. Henkel''
mother-in-law, who said Fisch bor-
rowed S4,350 from her and did moi
pay it back.
Henry Uhlig, who said he was
Fisch's best friend, had helped him ir
his pie business" and accompanied
him back to Germany in December
1888. He swore Fisch had not loaned
him money.
Stanley Seal, Pennington pattern
maker, who exhibited a device he
said would show a nicked plane oper-
ated at various angles would cause
grooves of varied width. He then
operated Hauptmann's plane over
board
Three Sourland Mountain region
residents testified variously that
Millard Whited'S reputation for hon
esty was not good. Whited had tes-
titled for the State that he saw man
resembling Hauptmann near the
Lindbergh estate the afternoon be-
fore the kidnapping. The witnesses
were William Whitehead, a relative
Of Millard; George E. Lenz and Will
liam Diehl.
Fails to Qualify.
Hugh Orr of Brockton, lIass.. who
was presented as a physicist" and
who agreed with Wilentz when his
qualifications were under question he
was not qualified to testify on wood.
Edward J. Reilly, chief defense
counsel, called other witnesses. in
cluding the beauteous Hildegarde
Olga Alexander, Park avenue pajama
model, who had identified Hauptmann
as the man she saw shadowing Dr.
John F. "Jafs!c' Condor.
She was not present, nor was a
"Mr. Friedlander" for whom Reilly
called in vain.
The testimony of De Bisschop, Orr,
Seal and DR.. Hudson all was aimed
at clearing Hauptmann as the maker
Of the Ndnap ladder by casting doubt
on the States Identification of the
lumber in it, the absence of Haupt-
mann's fingerprints and the difference
in the plane marks when the plane
was used in different manners