The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, 1935claybaughhistory.weebly.com/uploads/2/...kidnapping...ransom...

The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case 1935

Suspect Bruno Richard Hauptmann

Evidence

The Case for the Prosecution

New Jersey State attorney general David T Wilentz

Key Witness for the prosecution Dr John Condon

1 Acting on instruction from the caller Condon met a man who identified himself only as

ldquoJohnrdquo To prove that he had the baby the man agreed to hand over the childrsquos sleeper and he

mailed it to Condon several days later At another meeting ldquoJohnrdquo accepted the ransom

payment in exchange for directions to where authorities could find the baby The directions

proved to be false

In the trial Dr Condon identified Hauptmann as ldquoCemetery Johnrdquo by his voice Like ldquoJohnrdquo

Hauptmann had a strong German accent Charles Lindbergh had accompanied Condon on this

second meeting with ldquoJohnrdquo Lindbergh testified that while waiting in the car on a dark evening

outside St Raymondrsquos Cemetery in New York City he heard the man shout ldquoHey Doctor Over

Here rdquo The voice sounded identical to that of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Lindbergh claimed

2 The gas station attendant testified that Hauptmann had paid for his gasoline with one of the

ransom bills In addition police investigators testified that they found in the garage behind

Hauptmannrsquos apartment nearly $14000 worth of bills wrapped in an old newspaper Serial

numbers identified the bills as those given to the Lindbergh kidnapper Yet Hauptmann had told

them he had no other ransom money in his possession

3 During the course of the investigation before the trial the police had uncovered many details

linking Hauptmann to the crime as well as incidents that made him look suspicious When they

asked him if he had a criminal record Hauptmann lied that he did not In fact he had served

three years in a German prison for felonies such as armed robbery

4 The prosecution introduced work records showing Hauptmann had quit his job as a carpenter

at about the time the Lindberghs had paid the ransom An accountant testified that Hauptmann

deposited considerable sums of money in his bank account shortly after leaving his job

Attorney General Wilentz asked the jurors to consider the odds that these events were merely

coincidental

5 Several handwriting experts swore under oath that the same person had written all the ransom

notes and that the handwriting style matched Hauptmannrsquos Also in one memo Hauptmann had

written for police he had written ldquoboadrdquo for the word ldquoboatrdquo-just as the kidnapper had done in

one of the ransom notes

6 A taxi driver took the stand for the prosecution to testify that Hauptmann had paid him a

dollar to deliver a message to Condon Three separate witnesses placed Hauptmann in the

vicinity of the Lindbergh house around the date of the crime One of them said he saw a ladder

in the back seat of the car that Hauptmann was driving

7 After the kidnapping police had found such a ladder lying about 70 feet away from the house

During his testimony woodworking expert Arthur Koehler stated that he had traced the lumber

used to make the ladder to a store in the Bronx New York Police found evidence that

Hauptmann had used a board from his own attic to build one of the rails of the ladder

8 Furthermore investigators found Dr Condonrsquos phone number scrawled on the wall of a closet

in Hauptmannrsquos house

Facing the jury prosecutor Wilentz argued that he had presented overwhelming evidence to

prove that Hauptmann acting alone had kidnapped and murdered 20-month-old Charles

Augustus Lindbergh III

Based on this evidence alone is Bruno Hauptmann guilty or

not guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby

Class members should mark a ballot stating their

conclusions and why

This case was taken from You are the Juror Great Decisions series by Nathan Aaseng

Oliver Press Inc 1997 Pages 13-28



Evidence

The Case for the Defense

Attorney for the defense Edward J Reilly

1 Bruno Hauptmann and his wife provided an alibi for the evening of the kidnapping

Hauptmann had picked up his wife when she finished her shift at a bakery and the two were

together the rest of the night Three witnesses supported their claim saying that they had seen

Hauptmann at the bakery on the evening of the kidnapping

2 Other witnesses stated that on April 2 1932 the day that Condon had given the ransom

money to ldquoCemetery Johnrdquo Hauptmann had gone home after work to entertain a friend who

came over at seven orsquoclock Reilly observed that Hauptmann would not have

had time to go to the cemetery to meet with Condon

3 On the witness stand Hauptmann explained why he happened to have so much of the

kidnapperrsquos money He had been involved in a fur and stock-trading business with a man named

Isador Fisch In December 1933 Fisch had asked Hauptmann to hold some of his belongings

while Fisch traveled to Germany to visit his parents One of the items was a shoebox

Several witnesses reported seeing Fisch give Hauptmann the shoebox for safekeeping

but none of them had seen what was in the box Hauptmann himself maintained he had no idea

the box contained money until Fisch died while still in Europe After he opened the box

Hauptmann decided to keep the money to pay off a large debt that Fisch owed him In August

1934 he began to spend the money

4 Hauptmann denied having any knowledge of Condonrsquos telephone number When asked about

the ladder he allegedly had built Hauptmann stated indignantly ldquoI am a carpenterrdquo indicating

he would not have built such a crude ladder Defense attorney Reilly cast doubt as to whether

the ladder on exhibit in the courtroom had actually been used in the kidnapping because it wasnrsquot

long enough When leaned against the Lindberghrsquos house it fell short of the nursery window

5 The defense posed other questions casting doubt on the prosecutionrsquos story Why would

Hauptmann remove a piece of wood from his attic to build a ladder when he had a garage full of

wood to use Why hadnrsquot the Lindberghrsquos dog barked the moment it sensed an intruder Did

not this absence of barking suggest that someone in the Lindbergh house who would not have

alarmed the dog had played a role in the kidnapping

6 The defense also pointed out that when Dr Condon first saw Hauptmann at the police station

he did not identify him as ldquoCemetery Johnrdquo Condon made the declaration only after the police

began building a case against Hauptmann And how could Lindbergh identify Hauptmannrsquos

voice as ldquoCemetery Johnrsquosrdquo after hearing the kidnapper utter only a few words two years ago

7 Finally the defense displayed evidence of a bank transaction involving nearly $3000 of the

marked ransom money All of the handwriting experts agreed that the writing on the transaction

slip was not Bruno Hauptmannrsquos This indicated that someone else had committed the crime

The prosecutionrsquos rebuttal

1 To refute defense testimony the prosecution introduced a theater employee who said that on

November 26 1933 Hauptmann had paid for a movie ticket with one of the ransom bills This

had occurred well before Hauptmann claimed to have discovered Fischrsquos money

Based on this additional evidence is Bruno Hauptmann

guilty or not guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby


conclusions and why



Name______________________________



You are the Juror What is your final decision

Gathered outside the building in which you are deliberating a large angry crowd chants ldquoBaby

Killer Burn Hauptmannrdquo But you must make your own decision What is your verdict in the

murder and kidnapping charges against Bruno Hauptmann

Option 1 Hauptmann is guilty and the state should impose the death penalty

Option 2 Hauptmann is guilty and the state should impose life imprisonment

Option 3 Hauptmann is not guilty

Legal Issues

According to New Jersey law if the juror found Hauptmann guilty they had the option of

recommending a sentence of life imprisonment If they did not recommend this more lenient

sentence Judge Thomas Trenchard could impose the death penalty

After listening to the arguments for the prosecution discuss the case with your table and

make a decision about the outcome of the case

Guilty_________________ Not Guilty_______________

Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

After listening to the arguments for the defense discuss the case with your table and

make a decision about the outcome of the case Did you change your mind____________


Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

After hearing the case analysis did you change your mind_________________________ Why or why not___________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________





The jurors chose option 1 They found Hauptmann guilty and

recommended death

Almost immediately after entering the jury room the eight men and four women on the jury

voted for a guilty verdict But they continued to deliberate for 11 hours about whether to

recommend the death sentence Eventually two holdouts on the jury joined the majority and

Judge Thomas Trenchard sentenced Hauptmann to die in the electric chair On April 3 1936-

one year three months and one day after his trial had begun-the state of New Jersey executed

Bruno Richard Hauptmann

Analysis after the case

A large majority of Americans agreed with the verdict in the trial of Bruno Hauptmann

yet the mob of people gathered in front of the courthouse disturbed many of those who supported

the guilty verdict No matter how passionate people feel about a case attempts to intimidate a

jury hurt the cause of justice Even Charles Lindbergh expressed dismay at what he called

ldquo a lynching crowdrdquo

A minority of Americans believed Hauptmann to be innocent including New Jersey

governor Harold Hoffman His postponement of the death sentence-originally scheduled for

March 18 1935-and his attempt to further investigate the case angered many voters and cost him

his political career

Many others also harbored doubts about the case Famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow

declared ldquoNo man should be executed on such flimsy evidencerdquo An Editor and Publisher

article stated that ldquoNo trial in this century has so degraded the administration of justicerdquo

referring to the way in which both the state and the defense had presented their cases Many

experts agreed that Hauptmannrsquos lawyer had given a rather halfhearted defense

In the years after the trialrsquos end the following facts came to light

1 A witness who told police that he had seen Hauptmann near the Lindbergh home was legally

blind

2 Another prosecution witness admitted to lying under oath for money



3 Handwriting experts had based their demonstration on a ldquomatchrdquo with the ransom letters on

only a few sentences of the many samples of Hauptmannrsquos writing available to them Other

handwriting experts who were convinced that Hauptmann had not written the ransom notes did

not have the opportunity to appear in court

4 Dr Condonrsquos telephone number had been written on the wall in Hauptmannrsquos closet by a

reporter who then had prepared a story on the ldquonew evidencerdquo

5 Private investigators traced the kidnapping to a man named Paul Wendel who confessed but

later denied that he was ldquoCemetery Johnrdquo

6 Letters that police investigators had seized from Hauptmann confirmed his business

relationship with Isador Fisch

These and other issues have cast a cloud of controversy over the Lindbergh kidnapping case that

lingers to this day In recent years Hauptmann has gained more sympathy In 1994 author Noel

Behn presented a compelling case that the supposed kidnapping never took place at all and that

the baby had died two days earlier probably at the hands of Charles Lindberghrsquos sister-in-law

The resulting report of a kidnapping he argues was merely a cover-up

As with many court cases the members of the jury in the Hauptmann trial had to live

with their decision to condemn Bruno Richard Hauptmann to death never knowing whether they

had interpreted all the evidence correctly or whether they had even seen and heard all the

evidence that would have helped them to decide the case





Case Description

In 1927 as the first person to make a solo airplane flight across the Atlantic

Ocean from New York to Paris Charles Lindbergh became perhaps the most

popular hero in the world and was hailed by crowds everywhere But nearly five

years after his legendary flight glory turned to tragedy

On the night of March 1 1932 Charles and Anne Morrow Lindberghrsquos 20-

month-old son Charles Augustus Lindbergh III disappeared from their country

mansion near Hopewell New Jersey In a note marred by poor spelling and

grammar the kidnapper demanded $50000 in small bills ldquoWe warn yourdquo the

note threatened ldquoFor making anyding public or for the poliserdquo

Eventually the Lindberghs received a total of 15 written messages with

instruction as to how to proceed with paying the ransom Charles Lindbergh

delivered the money according to the kidnapperrsquos instructions but little Charles

was not returned to his parents On May 12 in the New Jersey woods only a little

over two miles from the Lindberghrsquos home a trucker found the body of a baby

who had died from a blow to the head Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh

identified the child as their young son

The first money displaying the serial number of one of the ransom bills

turned up within a few days of the payment But efforts by the police to trace the

kidnapper through these serial numbers reached a dead end Finally more than

two years after the crime a gas-station attendant wrote down the car license

number of a man who paid for his gasoline with a $10 bill The bill was one of

those Lindbergh had given to the kidnapper

Police investigators traced the license number to a 34-year-old German

immigrant carpenter named Bruno Richard Hauptmann Charged with murder by

the state of New Jersey Bruno Hauptmann went to trial on January 2 1935





Use this case when discussing the sixth amendment in the Bill of Rights The purpose is to have

the students understand the difficulties in jury duty when making sure that everyone has a

prompt public trial with a defense lawyer and a fair jury

Classroom procedure

1 Read the description of the case to the class

Ask if they have any questions at that point Make sure they understand the nature of the

crime that has been committed

2 Read the arguments for the prosecution

Give students time to discuss the evidence with each other and then privately write

down their own verdict and the reasons why Be sure to explain the information in the box on

the handout so that they understand the differences in the three options Also explain that ldquonot

guiltyrdquo does not necessarily mean ldquoinnocentrdquo It may also mean that there is not enough

evidence to convict a person of the crime

3 Read arguments for the defense

Give students time to discuss the evidence with each other and then privately write down

their own verdict and the reasons why Also ask them to indicate if after hearing the defense

they have changed their verdict

4 Tally class votes and discuss the evidence on both sides

Try to get the entire class to agree on a verdict This will be almost impossible but it

will demonstrate the difficulty in getting a jury to agree on a verdict You may want to have a

spokesperson for each possible verdict try to persuade the class to agree with their point of view

Then vote as a class again

5 Tell the class how the jury actually voted and the concerns that were expressed by Lindbergh

and others about the public at the trial

6 Read the case analysis to the class

Tell them the new evidence that came to light after the execution of Bruno Hauptmann

Ask them to re-evaluate their vote and see if the new evidence has changed their mind

7 Discuss with the class the difficulty in finding the truth and the burden the jury carries for the

decisions they make



The morning after the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby on March 1 1932 Hopewell NJ police re-enact the crime with the extension ladder found under the nursery window

Record Group Department of Institutions and Agencies Subgroup New Jersey State Prison at Trenton Series Inmate File 17400 - Bruno Richard Hauptmann 1934-1965 Accession 1997042 Series SINTR003 Guide Date 32007 (EC) Volume 03 cf (1 box)

Content Note | Contents

Access Note

Special permission must be granted to use this material

Content Note

On 19 September 1934 Richard Bruno Hauptmann was arrested in New York for the March 1932 kidnapping and subsequent murder of Charles A Lindbergh Jr in Hunterdon County New Jersey New Jersey Gov A Harry Moore issued a requisition to the State of New York on 9 October requesting Hauptmann be delivered into the custody of New Jersey officials this was honored on the following day Hauptmannrsquos trial took place in the Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminor in Flemington during January - February 1935 He was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death on 13 February Although the execution was scheduled for the following month a 15 March 1935 stay of execution and a 16 January 1936 reprieve postponed the execution by electric chair at the State Prison to the evening of 3 April 1936

Bruno Richard Hauptmannrsquos inmate file was received by the State Archives from the Department of Corrections in 1997 The file includes extradition papers pre-dating his incarceration in Trenton as well as several related but unofficial items added after his execution Note that the New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center in West Trenton NJ holds records and evidence from the Hauptmann trial as part of an extensive archive relating to the Lindbergh kidnapping

Contents (click on image below for enlarged view)

No Caption Image

1 Inventory of inmate file contents Bruno Richard Hauptmann 17400 no date

2 Requisition of Gov A Harry More to the State of New York requesting that Bruno Richard Hauptmann be conveyed to the State of New Jersey Trenton NJ 9 October 1934 [not listed in typescript file inventory]

3 Warrant certificate of Gov Herbert H Lehman of New York honoring requisition of State of New Jersey for surrender of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Albany NY 10 October 1934 [not listed in typescript file inventory]

4 Warrant for execution of sentence and judgment The State of New Jersey vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann on conviction of murder Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer 13 February 1935 [Item 1 on typescript file inventory]

5 Inmate photograph of Bruno Richard Hauptmann prisoner 17400 16 February 1935 [BampW 3rdquox5rdquo appears to be reprint also blank prisoner information card to which photograph had been stabled not listed in typescript file inventory]

6 Identification Department data sheet Prisoner No 17400 Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey State Prison Trenton 16 February 1935 [not listed in typescript file inventory]

7 Prisonerrsquos personal property receipt signed by Bruno Richard Hauptmann 16 February 1935 [not listed in typescript file inventory]

8 Record of visits Prisoner No 17400 Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey State Prison Trenton 18 February 1935 ndash 3 April 1936 [9 pages not listed in typescript file inventory]

(9 pages)

9 Order staying execution The State vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann sur indictment for murder Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer 15 March 1935 [2 pages item 3 in typescript file inventory]

10 Affidavit summons and complaint etc Henry Matera Assignee of James M Fawcett vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey Supreme Court Hudson Co and New York Supreme Court April 1935 [true copies 13 pages not listed in typescript file inventory]

(13 pages)

11 Action at Law ndash Order Henry Matera Assignee of James M Fawcett vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey Supreme Court Hudson County 26 April 1935 [true copy 2 pages item 4 in typescript file inventory]

12 Action at Law ndash Order Edward J Reilly vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey Supreme Court 29 May 1935 [true copy 2 pages item 5 in typescript file inventory]

13 Classification progress record 3 June ndash 12 July 1935 [6 pages including 4 carbon copies not listed in typescript file inventory]

14 Letter from Col Mark O Kimberling to Rev J Matthiesen advising him that Bruno Richard Hauptmann requested that Matthiesen visit him as spiritual advisor 22 November 1935 [unsigned carbon copy not listed in typescript file inventory]

15a Warrant for execution of sentence and judgment The State vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann on conviction of murder Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer 13 December 1935 [2 pages amp jacket cover item 6 in typescript file inventory]

15b Warrant for execution of sentence and judgment The State vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer 13 December 1935 [true copy with reproduced signatures 3 pages item 6 in typescript file inventory]

16 Reprieve of Gov Harold G Hoffman postponing death sentence of Bruno Richard Hauptmann from week of 12 January to 15 February 1936 [Trenton NJ] 16 January 1936 [item 7 in typescript file inventory]

17 Letter from Gov Harold G Hoffman to Col Mark O Kimberling Principal Keeper of the State Prison advising him of the reprieve of Bruno Richard Hauptman postponing the execution to 15 February [Trenton NJ]16 January 1936 [not listed in typescript file inventory]

18 Letter acknowledging receipt of reprieve of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Col Mark O Kimberling to Gov Harold G Hoffman [Trenton NJ] 17 January 1936 [unsigned carbon copy not listed in typescript file inventory]

19 Letter from Col Mark O Kimberling to Henry Stalzensberger re New Jersey statute prohibiting services to be held over the remains following an execution Office of the Principal Keeper New Jersey State Prison 4 April 1936 [unsigned but receipted copy also forwarding note form F B Ryan to Mr Bleam item 11 in typescript file inventory]

20 Warrant for execution of sentence and judgment The State vs Bruno Richard Hauptmann on conviction of murder Hunterdon County Court of Oyer and Terminer 19 February 1936 [3 pages amp jacket cover item 8 in typescript file inventory]

21 Letter of Col Mark O Kimberling to Mr I C Bleam Prison Clerk re closing out the record of Bruno Richard Hauptmann New Jersey State Prison Trenton 6 April 1936 [item 10 in typescript file inventory]

22 Typed note re Hauptmann finances no date [not listed in typescript file inventory]

23 Photograph of electric chair Trenton State Prison no date [BampW 275rdquox45rdquo not listed in typescript file inventory]

24 ldquoWho Said the Lindbergh Case was Solvedrdquo manuscript of Arthur J W Jones Inmate 17966 New Jersey State Prison Farm September 1956 letters from David J Goldberg to Jones and Director F Lovell Bixby to Dr Lloyd W McConkle Principal Keeper New Jersey State Prison re publication of Jonesrsquos manuscript 26 amp 27 September 1956 [9 pages not listed in typescript file inventory]

(7 pages)

Back to Top

Consult the Reference services page andor the Guide to Reproduction and Research Services Policies and Fees

for information on reproduction of images included in this collection Created March 2007

Relative to research and mail reference services - archivesreferencesosstatenjus Relative to records transfers and donations - archivescollectionssosstatenjus

225 West State Street PO Box 307

Trenton NJ 08625-0307 6092926260 (general information)

6096338334 (administrative office) 6092929105 (fax)

Please send comments concerning this website to webmasterdarmsosstatenjus

department njsos home | opra njdarm home | about us | state archives | records management | microgaphics amp imaging | records storage | related organizations statewide njhome | my new jersey | people | business | government | departments | search Copyright copy State of New Jersey 2003-2004

7 After the kidnapping police had found such a ladder lying about 70 feet away from the house

During his testimony woodworking expert Arthur Koehler stated that he had traced the lumber

used to make the ladder to a store in the Bronx New York Police found evidence that

Hauptmann had used a board from his own attic to build one of the rails of the ladder

8 Furthermore investigators found Dr Condonrsquos phone number scrawled on the wall of a closet

in Hauptmannrsquos house

Facing the jury prosecutor Wilentz argued that he had presented overwhelming evidence to

prove that Hauptmann acting alone had kidnapped and murdered 20-month-old Charles

Augustus Lindbergh III

Based on this evidence alone is Bruno Hauptmann guilty or

not guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby


conclusions and why





Evidence












































conclusions and why



Name______________________________










Legal Issues







Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________




Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________


_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________






recommended death
























blind



























Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top











Evidence












































conclusions and why



Name______________________________










Legal Issues







Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________




Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________


_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________






recommended death
























blind



























Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top



















conclusions and why



Name______________________________










Legal Issues







Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________




Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________


_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________






recommended death
























blind



























Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top









Name______________________________










Legal Issues







Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________




Why ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________


_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________






recommended death
























blind



























Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top












recommended death
























blind



























Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top
































Case Description

































Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top














Classroom procedure

























decisions they make






Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top












Access Note


Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top









Content Note




No Caption Image









(9 pages)



(13 pages)
















(7 pages)

Back to Top









The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, 1935claybaughhistory.weebly.com/uploads/2/...kidnapping...ransom...

Documents

Transcript of The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, 1935claybaughhistory.weebly.com/uploads/2/...kidnapping...ransom...