Evening star., 1935-02-02
ATTACK PLANNED
ON ''MA|D' AL|b|
Implication of Violet Sharpe
to Meet States
Resistance.
Continued From First Page.)

| spot OF the day, and indicated that
| the defense, to some extent at least,
was desirous of keeping Fisch under
the spotlight Of suspicion in the case.
The evidence apparently dove-tailed
with the story of Lou Harding, Tren-
ton laborer, told Thursday for the
defense.
Two Men Had Ladder.
Harding swore he saw two men in
q station wagon bearing ladder near
Princeton on the day Of the kid
naping, and that they asked him di-
| rections to the Lindbergh estate near
Hopewell. In the testimony of both
men, Sommer and Harding, two men
| figured.
! At one point Of Sommer's testi-
/ mony under croSS-examination, he
said he saw a small man, resembling
Fisch, in the company Of tall man
on a Jersey trolley en- route to the
| ferry. A few minutes later he was
saying the first small man disappeared
at the ferry, and a second small man
joined the tall man for the trip across
the river to New York.
Trendley, ace handwriting author
ity of the defense, apparently failed
to make the impression expected on
the stand, since one defense attorney
was frankly critical Of the way he re-
spOnded to the opportunities of direct
examination.
The expert presented marked con-
trast to the authorities called by the
State. Trendley seemed detached and
diSintereSted as he answered questions
in voice which rarely took on posi-
tive infection. Where the State ex-
perts directed most of their remarks
directly to the jury box, Trendley
paid little attention to 1t and at times
his voice sank to such a low whisper
that it was inaudible not only to the
jury, but even to the court STEM
ographer who sat at the foot of the
stand.
Trendley's direct examination was
restricted entirely to the ransom note
found after the kidnapping in the
Lindbergh nursery. He declared his
study OF the ransom correspondence
and the Hauptmann writings had con-
vinced him the Bronx carpenter never
wrote the ransom letters. He used
the original note to demonstrate his
opinion.
Osborn Testimony.
II He said Albert S. Osborn, dean Of
the eight State handwriting witnesses,
had included only two words of the
first ransom note in his Photographic
comparisons of the handwritings,
| whereas he considered the first note
full of distinctive characteristics no
expert could honestly disregard.
1t was his opinion, he said, that
the ransom correspondence had been
written by left-handed man seeking
to disguise his Handwriting, and cited
technical reasons to back this con-
clusion.
| Assistant Attorney General Joseph
Lanigan, who has been handling the
handwriting evidence for the prosecu-
tion, harried the expert into telling
the jury his examinations of the
original ransom notes were highly
casual'-something for which he
blamed the prosecutions lack of CO.
operation. He said he had spent only
two and half hours studying the
| originals, but added he spent con-
siderable time scrutinizing photostatic
| copies
Lanigan elected admissions from
Trendley that his examination had
| not been thorough on such points as
misspelled words, undotted lis" un-
crossed It's" and other particulars.
Lanigan also read back to the wit
ness the transcript of his direct testi-
mony in which he first said he did
not regard the word gut" in the
nursery note, of any significance, and
then a few minutes later he con-
tradicted himself by declaring he did
consider the word very significant.
Trendley insisted he meant both
answers, whereupon Lanigan excused
him. The State subsequently ex-
pressed the belief the experts testi-
mony had been attacked SO success
fully 1t was valueleSs to the Haupt-
mann defense.
Student Offers Aid.
Among the eye-witnesses the State
previously called into the case was
Ben Lupica, the Princeton College
student who told Of seeing a man in
an automobile with ladder in it near
the Lindbergh estate the afternoon of
the crime.
Lupica never was called and sub
seQuently, it was learned authorita-
lively, became associated with the de-
fense.
The youth, a member of the prose-
cution staff said today, was now pre-
pared to testify for the defense that
the driver of the ladder car was not
Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Should the student take the stand,
the prosecution was prepared to con-
front him with his published state
ment that he was certain the driver
of the car was the defendant.
Lupica, the prosecution attorney
said, had never been able to satisfy
the police authorities that he had
identified the man in the car. He had
given a satisfactory story Of the incl
dent Of seeing ladder, resembling
painters extension ladder, in a green
sedan, similar to that of Hauptmann,
wheel was not conclusive.
The defense, it was likewise dis
closed, has been seeking evidence to
discredit the testimony of the States
wood expert. Arthur j. Koehler, who |
testified wood in the ladder came from !
Hauptmann's Bronx attic.
Two lumber merchants Of Fleming |
ton, one of them the former mayor,
Samuel Bodine, examined the ladder,
but. 1t was learned, could not state !
with certainty that the floor board |
from the attic and a runner of the |
ladder were not once the same piece. |
The defense was reported prepared |
to offer statement on construction |
Of the ladder by Squire johnson, for
merly attached to the architectural
division of the New Jersey department |
Of institutions and agencies. john
son at present is serving as temporary
relief director in Hunterdon County.
Johnson's report was said to set
forth the opinion that the ladder was
built by a left-handed, unskilled per-
son. Hauptmann has asserted in
ro,,yf on, norray,fov