The Ely miner., 1935-02-08

This led to investigation of eastern
planning mills using this type of ma
chine. Samples were secured from
all Of them by Koehler, and finally
mill was located whose lumber had
marking similar to those on the pieces
used in the ladder search of %
lumber yards to which lumber of this
kind had been shipped eventually
brought him to the Bronx yard, and it
developed that Hauptmann had
worked at periods in the yard and in
December, 1881, two months before
the kidnapping, he purchased guam.
tity of this lumber.
The piece of wood which Koehler
asserted had been taken from the ar
tic of the Hauptmann home was orig
inally one board, which was sawed in
half to make the uprights of the lad
der. Nail holes in the ladder board
correspond with the nail holes in
joists in the attic. he said, and he add
ed that it was inconceiyable that this
was coincidence.
Other testimony presented by the
state charges that Hauptmann was
author of the series of ransom letters
admitting possession of the baby. that
he left one of the letters In the nurs-
cry at the time the Lindbergh baby
disappeared, that he possessed the
child's sleeping suit, and that he visited
the Lindbergh estate.
The prosecution has also attempted
to show that Hauptmann collected the
$4,000 ransom money and that his
wealth increased approximately by
that amount Personal identifications
have been made by DR.. John f. "Jaf-
sic" Condor, Col. Charles A. Lind
bergh and Cecile M. Barr as accept
ing and passing the ransom money.
and by Millard Whited, Charles Ros-
sitter and Amandus Hochmuth putting
him near the Lindbergh estate. The
latter is not expected to have much
weight because Of the time interven-
ing between when they are said to
have seen Hauptmann and the time of
Identification.
The physical evidence will undoubt-
edly carry much weight. The testi-
mony that Hauptmann penned the ran
som notes and the address on the pack
age containing the child's sleeping
suit, as we'll as the note left in the
nursery must be refuted by the de-
fense.
Observers at the trial seem to feel
that only one practical defense exists
for Hauptmann. That would be one
offering proof that master mind
committed the crime and that Haupt-
mann was only the unwilling tool. If
such is the case the leader would be
one without historical parallel, be-
cause of his success in covering his
own tracks and his ability to provide
such infinite physical proof of Haupt-
mann's guilt
This would lead back in all probabil-
ity to contention by the defense that
the mysterious Isador Fisch, who died
in Germany, was the man who planned
the kidnapping. and who used Haupt-
mann as a ''front" for his later inan-
cial dealings.
Reilly has stated that Fisch was the
man who furnished the money for the
stock market manipulations carried on
in Hauptmann's name. A witness has
testified that Hauptmann and Fisch
were seen together in the brokers' Of
fee where the former had an account,
although there was no way for the
firm to know whether Fisch really had
control of the speculations.
How far Reilly can go in establish
ing this is not known. The fact that
Fisch is dead will make 1t difficult.
Thus far the relatives of the dead fur
rler have not been introduced in court
A detective recently returned from Ger
many with several persons connected
with the family. who, it is said, are
ready to testify that their brother had
no part in the crime. and that he died
practically penniless.
Meanwhile the drama of Flemington
courthouse grinds on. The grim-faced
German carpenter fighting for his life,
his sad-eyed wife standing by him en-
couraging her "Reeshard" as he battles
to clear himself of the awful charge of
murder. Colonel Lindbergh whose world
| fame brought him sorrow in the death
of mis- first-born son. the attorneys.
Justice Trenchard. all combining a cast
in the greatest emotional drama of
many years. The outcome nobody
knows.
wNU Service.