Evening star., 1935-02-09

| WilentzS objection was sustained.
! Fisher turned to the board nails.
@. You say they are the nails be-
cause they are in that package?
A. know they are the nails be-
cause they are in that package.
O. You identify them from that
paper?
A. know they were taken out of
the board and the package has been
| in our possession since.
Bornmann explained he had lifted
| the attic board from the joiSts with his
hands without the aid Of tools.
His statement explained the absence
of tool marks on the board, a point
made by the defense
Mrs. Morrow
Arrives in Court Room.
While Bornmann was testifying Mrs.
| Morrow arrived quietly IN court and
took her seat among the rows of spec
tators near the defense table Mrs
Anne Lindbergh accompanied her
Their entrance was so quiet many did
not realize their presence.
Fisher completed his cross-exam-
ination and Bornmann was excused.
Arthur j. Koehler, Federal wood ex-
pert, was called as the next rebuttal
witness.
Wilentz questioned him about nick
marks on wood by planes.
Pope's objection that Koehler was
not practical carpenter and there
fore could not discuss planes was over
ruled.
@. What have you to say of the
similarity of the markings left by
! Hauptmann's plane on the lumber
brought here and the marks on the
rungs of the ladder?
Pope objected the expert was not
qualified to testify. He was overruled,
and the witness was allowed to reply
A. The marks were identical when
wood. When the plane was held at an
angle, the marks were closer together.
@. Does that interfere with the
/ Identification of the plane marks
themselves?
A. No, it does not.
KoehIer Again
Holds Attention Of Jury.
The jury was giving Koehler the
same rapt attention he received when
he first took the stand during the
States direct case.
Wilentz produced next, the two
short boards used by the defense to
show similarities in wood of allegedly
different origin.
These two boards" Koehler de-
clared. "were once in the same piece
for a number of reasons"
Charles j. de Bisschop, lumberman
Of Waterbury, Conn, for the defense
testified the boards were not from the
same piece.
Koehler demonstrated a continuity
of bead" in the center of both boards.
The jury was allowed to examine
them.
Pope's objections to the proceeding
were overruled
Koehler went on with his reasons"
for the identity of the boards. The
backs of the boards we're of the same
roughness, except one had been
washed and planed slightly.
G. Prior to that planning was that
board of the same roughneSs as the
other?
A Yes.
Koehler, speaking in his sure, pro-
fessional way, also called the jury's
attention to the black spots both
boards bore, indicating, he said, tar
paper or some similar material had
once been nailed to them.
The end grain, or annual rings, cor
responded exactly, he said.
"It is obvious, of course, these two
boards were not exactly next to each
other" he continued. However,
when I hold them few inches apart
the matching of the surface grain is
very apparent"
He expressed the opinion that a
piece had been cut from between the
two pieces.
Federal Expert
Demonstrates to Jury.
Koehler laid the two pieces on
another board to demonstrate to the
jury that, with a separation of an
inch and quarter, their grain
matched perfectly. The pieces were
fastened with rubber bands in the
position he desired and he held them
out to the jury for inspection, indi-
eating the continuity of dark and
light lines" of the grain.
Both Hauptmann and his wife,
Anna, watched the demonstration
intently, their faces serious.
WilentZ turned the questioning to
the knots in the ladder rail and attic
board.
@. Now with relation to the knots,
what was the position of the two in
the tree?
A. This board (attic) was above rail
16 (runner) in the three.
@. Is it a fact Gas testified by the
defense) that the butt logs have
more nots?
A. 1t is common knowledge that the