The Washington times., 1935-02-04

SOMNER FACES
HEAVY FIRE
On STAND
By ADELA ROGERS ST. JOHNS
Copyright. 1885 by International
News Service)

News service)
PENNINGTON, N. j., Feb. 4
The defense of Bruno Hauptmann
moves on.
. AS Peter Sommer, who testified
In the Hal-Mills case, in the Lind
bergh Hauptmann case, faces
brutal cross-examination at the
hands Of David Wilentz on his
story of the baby, the lady and
the little short man he saw on a
street car the night of the kid
naping, we await hourly some real
definite contradiction Of the
States case against Hauptmann
That case was concluded and
putting aside all sentiment and
prejudice we estimated it.
Was it a strong case? Was it a
weak case?
Sitting here now, watching the
defense, we know it was a strong
and able case.
The States Case
Mr.. Wilentz, the attorney.gen-
eral, produced as follows:
/. The ransom notes, identi-
fled by the best handwriting
experts in the world as having
been written by Bruno Haupt-
mann.
2. The possession by Bruno
Hauptmann of the Lindbergh
ransom money.
3. The ladder found upon the
scene of the crime and con-
nected with Hauptmann's own
attic by piece of wood which
you could see with your own
eyes.
4. The ransom money in q
board in which holes had been
bored, with a gun hidden away
with it.
5. Hauptmann's leaving Of his
Job, his failure to work one day
after payment Of that ransom
money found in his possession,
his amazing speculations on the
stock market for which he has
nothing but his word in ade'
quate explanation.
s. His positive Identification
by DR.. John F. Condor, as
John, the man he met in st.
Raymond's Cemetery and in
Woodlawn Cemetery, as the
man to whom he paid the ran.
som money.
Lindbergh's Testimony
7. The sworn oath of Col.
Charles Augustus Lindbergh
that the voice he heard crying,
''Hey doktor-this way, doktor,"
are one and the same.
3. The finding on a board in
Hauptmann's closet of the tele-
phone number of DR.. Condor.
8. Hauptmann's ancial
condition lrevious to and fol-
lowing the kidnapping.
This has been a strong and def
hite case. It has been supported
by unshakable material evidence.
Now we hear from Bruno Rich
Grd Hauptmann. the accused,
against whom the facts have been
bolemnly and seriously arrayed.
Mr.. Hauptmann was his own
HrSt-and best-witness.
Admission of Lies
When I study Bruno's testi-
t1ony on the printed page, I am
overwhelmed by it's constant eva
sion, its constant admission of
inaccuracies. If you will check it
carefully, you will find it start
ling document, when considered
as the sworn testimony of a man
charged with murder. never
knew a witness to admit 50 many
untruths.
Mrs. Hauptman testified.
Again diScounting emotion and
pity for her and her suffering,
again going back to cold facts, in
the trial of a murderer, she bore
out her husbands alibi-that was
all. And she made one damaging
admiSsion-her failure to see the
shoe box with the money which
Bruno said was for months on a
shelf in the closet where she
hung her apron.
Then we have had alibi wit
neSSes.
Two facts are paramount about
them. Their integrity and their
testimony of events upon the
night of March /.
So far their integrity has been
attacked by the State in a very
pointed and sometimes devaStat
ing fashion.
AS to their testimony, some OF
1t has stood up, some of it most
certainly has not.
6Tanostrias RrinU