The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-02-13

'Dr C0nd0n contacted the man. After some talk and delay he hand ed him the S5O,0Q0 ransom money, the number of whose bills had been taken.
 But you observe Dr Condon's testimony has been corroborated by several persons whose credibiiity has not been impeached in any manner.
 There is evidence that Dr Con- don was hailed by a man to whom he finally paid the money.
 "Col Lindbergh testified that the voice that hailed Condon was that of the defendant.
 "Dr Condon testified that the man to whom he paid the money was the defendant.
 This the defendant denies and there is other evidence to support.
 That is question for you to decide.
 "The defense claims it is unlike- ly that the defendant would have talked with Dr Condon.
 Well, that is up to the jury to decide.
 If you find the de. ndant was the man to whom the money was delivered, the question is pertinent was not the defendant the man who left the ransom note and took the child from the crib?
 Tt Is argued by the defense that the Kidnapping and murder was done by g. gang, and not by the oeIendant; and that the defendant was Tn no wise concerned there. Ihe argument was to the effect that 1t was done by a gang with the help or connivance of one or more servants of the Lindbergh household.
 Now do you believe that? Is there ere any evidence to support that? 4, me important question is did the defendant write the ransom note found in the Lindbergh home and the other ransom notes.
 MT osborn, ST, said the con- clusion that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes was conclusive.
 "on the other hand the defend ant denies he wrote it and a hand testified.
 And so 1t is for you to decide whether the defendant wrote pr Condons telephone number and adoress on the board in his house. IT you conclude that he did. then you may consider it as throwing llght on the negotiations with pr Condon.
 You may also consider the evil dence to the effect that shortly after the delivery of the ransom, the defendant began dealing more heaVil in stocks and spending more money than usual.
 The defendant says that these ransom bills were left with him by one Fisch-a man now dead. Do you believe that?
 He says he found the money In 6 shoe box in closet in his home several months after the de- fendant says 1t was given him by Fisch.
 Do you believe that he got that shoe box?
 "Tvls wife, as I recall, said she never saw the box, and I do not recall that anyone else by the de- fendant saw the box"
 Discussing the ladder found on the Idndbergh estate, Justice Tren- chard said:
 If you find that the defendant built 1t, 1t seems likely 1t was used In reaching the nursery. That the ladder was there seems unques- toned.
 "If 1t was not there for the purpose, why was it there?
 There is evidence the defendant built the ladder, although he de- nies 1t.
 '"The defendants own evidence is not to be rejected because of his interest, but it may be considered by you whether he is telling the truth.
 Ut appears that on cross ex- animation in court that the defen- dant has before been convicted, and you may consider that solely to question his credibility as q witness.
 "The defendant denies he was ever on the Lindbergh premises denies he was present when the child ceased to live-perished.
 "He denied receiving the ransom money.
 "He claims he was elsewhere at the time the crime was com mitted. This in law is called the setting up of an alibi.
 'If there is any doubt concern ing these alibis, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of these doubts.
 "In connection with this, you must consider the testimony of MT Rochmuth.
 "The witness said he saw Haupt- mann at the entrance to the Lind bergh home on March 1 and there was a ladder in the car. If true that testimony is highly significant.
 May he not well have remem- bered under the circumstance that