The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-01-24

| AaW WHACu 6ppileB to U ueutu tu the county where the attack Oe. cured, or a case of death by poison, or by felonious striking. There Is no evidence of such felonious striking.
 state proves a burglary, there is no case for murder.
 There Is no sufficient proof that defendant was at the scene of the crime on the night in question.
 The states contention of the defendants possession of part of the ransom money; his handwrit- ing identified with the ransom notes Is not sufficient proof the de- fendant was in the room where the crime was committed.
 "The state must. on their theory that he was the only one connected with the crime, prove he was at the scene.
 T think the only person who says he saw the defendant at or near the Lindbergh home was an old gentleman who thinks he saw him some distance away from the hndbergh house.
 Wiientz Replied
 "The state in this case has charged the defendant Hauptmann with the murder of the child on March 1, 1892.
 "In connection with this case, we stablished theory that was sound in fact and law.
 "That theory then. and now. is that he is guilty of this murder because he broke Into the Lind bergh home with intent to steal and that he committed battery upon the child.
 we have proved that this death resulted from this burglary.
 "If we have proved that, he Is guilty of murder.
 ",The evidence does not disclose the blow was struck in Mercer county, and not hunterdon coun- ty."
 Col Lindbergh, solemn faced, stared straight ahead. Not a mus cle in Hauptmann's face moved.
 He sat, hands folded and legs crossed like a statue.
 Wilentz recited cases and statutes to support his contention and said if it were necessary to prove the crime by circumstantial evidence, then we have proved that, too. If it is their intention to claim that we must show that someone sat in room and saw him commit that burglary, then we submit they are in error." I've have 0 wealth of evidence. The child was In its crib. The win dow closed. We have the mud prints in the nursery. We have the ladder there.
 Suppose Hauptmann had taken his ladder home with him? Would we have needed it? Not at all. The evidence is there.
 "So, we have wealth of evil dence of the crime, the murder was committed in Hunterdon coun-
 'We have found. death was due to a fractured skull.
 "And we have mute evidence in the thumbguard that the child was dead--in Hunterdon county"
 Col. Breckicridge, legal adviser to Lindbergh sat with head bowed; his hand over his face.
 Wilentz cited further court de- znitions of the crime of burglary. and said he had dealth with all the necessary phases of prove the burguary.
 "The common law interpretation of burglary has been applied in many cases of homicide.
 q think counsel has shown the murder was committed in Hunter don county.
 "I think that in all such cases defense contentious have been that the crimes of burglary and murder were separate. In such cases the, courts have held against any such contentious"
 Wilentz cited a decision which held that death following crime makes the two so closely connected they may be treated as one act. there is no proof that the defend- ant was at the scene of the crime.
 ''If we didn't have a living soul who haw him go up Lindy's Lane we have sufficient proof he was there.
 "A note was found in the baby's room In Hauptmann's handwritin. and two days later we have an- other note demanding the ransom.
 And we followed instructions and paid the money to the man whose handwriting was on the ransom note. And we find his chisel right by his ladder.
 "He represents all the time the child is we'll "give us the money" we are the right party"
 Wilents turned and gazed at the defendant, seated five feet away. There was color in Hauptmann's cheeks now, but he had not moved.
 "In every note that is in evil dence he says we planned this case for a year He had to saw part of his attic away. He had to plot and scheme for long time before he committed the crime.
 "It is respectfully submitted that there is not only sufficient evidence --there is overwhelming evidence"
 Rosecrans replied briefly to the attorney generals remarks. reiter- ating briefly the arguments he had first propounded.
 Justice Trenchard denied the motion and c. Llloyd Fisher made his opening address.
 When Fisher concluded his opening statement. a five minute recess was ordered.
 Hauptmhnn Called
 Bruno Richard Hauptmann was called as the first witness by Ed- ward J. Reilly, chief of defense counsel.
 . Hauptmann stood waiting to take the oath with a slight smile on his face, and nodded when he said T do."
 Tn the chair he leaned slightly forward and took out a blue wiping his hands.
 Deputy Sheriff Hovey Low stood behind him "by consent of coun- sell"
 Hauptman folded his hands in his lap and sat we'll forward in the chair.
 Q. What trade did you study ? A. Carpentry.
 0. How old were you when you went to the war? A. 17 and half
 q. Were you wounded? A. Il was gassed. d. During the reconstruction "