The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1935-02-08

picted It q extended and he coult
not be sure. He added that he ok
mot want TO make q fool Of myself.
He described the man In the auto
this way:
Ills hair was dark. He had
smooth face, no mustache or beard. :
! Charles J. De Bisschop. contractor
Of Waterbury, Conn.,, who gave hi.
!opiniou last Thursday that the famed
rail is" Of the ladder and flool
hoard from the attic had no relation
Ian opinion that dissented with on<
given by . state expert-produced Z
yellow pine sapling In court to show,
he said. that such trees have moro
knots near the base than above.
4 II was his contention that the attic
floor board. from which the state
charged rail 16 has been sawn. had
fewer knots than the rail. The rail
was used as an upright In one OF the
three sections Of the ladder.
Dc Bisschop testified further that
the ladder rail showed no shadows"
OF joists to which 1t would have been
nailed II It had been . piece Of
flooring as the state charged. More
over, he said, It showed no hammer
or chisel marks which he believed
would have been present II 1t had
been ripped from the attic floor.
On cross-examination he admitted
the rail might have been nailed to
joists."
! Ace witness for Defense
De Bisschop. plump and positive
contractor from Waterbury. Conn.,,
proved one Of the most distinctive
witnesses for the defense. General
contractor, road builder, boat builder,
house wrecker, nurseryman. farmer
and former lumberman, he was the
spearhead Of the defensex closing
drive to splinter the ladder evidence.
He testified he had studied the side
rail Of the ladder and the attic board
from which Arthur ]. Koehler, prose-
cution expert, asserted the rail was
cut.
II ask you," defense counsel In
quired, from your study. do you be-
lieve they are q part Of the same
board, then sawed apart, and that .
missing piece Of an inch and three
eighths once existed between them?"
Il can say they are not" he re"
piled.
Us there anything In these boards
to lead you to believe that they came
from the same tree3" he was asked.
mo. there Is not"
Knot Rings Dissimilar
De Bisschop pointed out that the
knot rings in the two boards were
dissimilar. that the heart Of the wood
did not match and that the pitch Of
the board taken from the attic should
have been harder, having been under
cover.
For the jury's edification the wit
ness matched other boards which he
said came from different sources and
showed that similartties Of grain could
be condolences.
Wilents, ripping into his testimony
during croes-examinatiou which last.
ed past the usual adjournment time,
brought out that De Bisschop had ex-
amil1ed only the one board from the
ladder, and that for only three hours.
Two important witnesses prepared
the way for his appearance.
Saw Only One Nailhole
Dr.. Erastus NJ. Hudson, New York
physician and amateur fingerprint
chemist, declared he noticed only one
nailhole in rail l6" when he examined
it for fingerprints two weeks after
the kidnapping.
Koehler has testified there were four
nailholes In that upright and they
matched perfectly with the nailholes
In the attic joists where a floor board
was missing.
Stanley Seal. q wood pattern-maker
from local foundry who looked like
. high school boy. gave the defenses
next testimony against the Koehler
evidence.
Hauptmanns plane. Koehler declar-
ed, was used in the construction Of the
ladder, leaving telltale ridges which
were identical with markings found on
wood Hauptmann had planned and on
wood experimentally planed by the
tool. Seal showed the jury that the
space between the markings made by
the nicked bit Of plane varied In pro-
portion to the angle at which the plane
was held.
r.-.s,... w...,..,. o.,,,.,
rns,S ,.,S 't ~. ~.s..ss.e.,r 81 ~.
ta.as e . n,a,,,. 80. 49, voah,.. =, Motor
We 81. 1.a .sAa S..v ,.,.st.a.a,,,,. =,
- s WIG aAeS ,N~ l r - ,,,s
VIC sal.ous p.a4 ~ oes.. .s 90 -"
oV ",, wv p.os. '..ey " .sas ,en~ s1;,
,. Is '. e. .v a..u VIC pS a. -.
n.s -. .ae ueae.ee ot ~ 49,;