The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-02-07

Fisch died in Leipzig, four
months after he and Uhlig
arrived in Germany.
He testified, however. to various
enterprises. including a pie business,
in which Fisch had a hand.
Hauptmann. who insists Flsch left
a shoebox with him containing the
ransom money found later in his
garage looks to Uhlig to prove his
statement that Fisch had al tha
ransom money in 1882.
The witness remarked that Fsch
had a very bad cough" in 1882. DR..
John F. Condor (Jafsie) described
the man who negotiated with him
for the ransom as having a cough.
Fisch borrowed large sums from
his friends, TO use in various busl-
ness enterprises, the defense showed.
Mrs. Augusta Hile, mother-in-law
Of the attractive Mrs. Gerta Hengel,
who testified in Hauptmann's he
half Yesterday. told the court F1sch
borrowed S435O from her and v
paid il back-nOt a cent of It.
The evidence was used to support
Hauptmann's assertion that he, too.
lent Fisch considerable money, and
that Fisch owed him $500 when ne
left the United states on the visit
TO Leipzig.
Framed Is Calm
Hauptmann's defense fought bit
ferlv today TO establish a theory
that their client was framed by
police. and that a board from which
the Lindbergh kidnap ladder was
constructed did not come from MS
attic. as the state contends.
Through DR.. Erasmus Hudson
physician and amateur ingerprint
expert. it set forth that there was
only n nail hole in the ladder sec
ton. and not four. as the proSecu-
ton has declared.
The matter Of the nail holes was
important. because Arthur Koehler,
the states wood expert, said he had
matched four Of them against holes
in an attic beam. and that nallS
fitted in them perfectly.
Or. Hudson was not shaken by
Atty. Gen. David T. Wilentz biting
cross-examination. still insisting that
TO the best Of his recollection he saw
only one nail hole in the section
when he examined it in March OF
1882.
Made No Notes. He Says
DR.. Hudson admitted with some
hesitation. however. that he made
no note" Of the nail holes at the
time he examined the ladder. Mr..
Wilentz and Hauptmann'S witnesses
duelled over the 800 finger prints
Dr.. Hudson said were shown upon
the ladder by his silver nitrate proc
eSS. and the expert was forced TO
admit that if many persons handled
the ladder. any fngerprints pre-
viouslv made by Hauptmann would
have been obliterated.
State experts had testified that no
finger prints were found anywhere in
the Lindbergh baby'S room. and that
the ladder itself was devoid of
prints. claiming the kidnaper wore
gloves.
With its ace ~fngerprint expert of
the stand. the defense began its at
tack on the credibility Of witnesses
who said they saw Bruno HaCpt-
mann near the Lindbergh estate at
the time OF the kidnapping.
witnesses Flay Whited
The character and general repu-
tation for truthfulnesS" Of Willard
Whited. who testified he saw Hsupt-
mann on two occasions in February.
1892. were asSailed by William
Whitehead. a neighbor. who testified
that Whited's reputation was not
OF the best"
Mr.. Wilentz asked only one Ques-
ton on croSs-examination. II was:
Were you eve in jail"
The answer was yes"
George z. J. LEM. another Hope
well neighbor. said he had known
Whited for % years and that his
reputation for truthfulneSs was not
good Thereupon. the attorney gen.
eral showed that he and Whited had
a feud over some lumber-which re-
suited in . long standing grudge.
Arranre STAG Party