Testimony of Frank A. Kelly

Direct examination by Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Young man, you are connected with the State Police of New Jersey, are you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have been connected with the State Police how long?

A. It will be eight years the 15th of this coming August.

Q. And as a result of some injury that you received, then you went to this work that you are doing now: isn't it?

A. Identification work, yes, sir.

Q. And in that connection you take photographs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Fingerprints and things of that kind?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All forms of identification?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have attempted to school yourself and learn as much as you could about it: is that so? And you have been doing that work for the State Police for how many years?

A. About six years.

Q. About six years. And in that capacity did you come to the Lindbergh home on the night to March 1st, 1932?

A. On the morning of March 2nd.

Q. About what time?

A. Five minutes after twelve.

Q. And when you got there, where did you go and what did you do, sir?

A. Upon my arrival I was met at the front entrance of the Lindbergh home by Corporal Wolfe, and Colonel Lindbergh, who directed me to the nursery on the second floor of the home.

Q. When you got to the nursery did you see a note there?

A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. And did you take that note and test it for fingerprint?

A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. And this envelope, S-17, and the note, S-18, both of which bear your initials on them somewhere, are those the papers that you tested that night?

A. They are.

Q. Was the note in the envelope?

A. It was.

Q. Did you take it out?

A. I did.

Q. And did you find any fingerprints there on?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you use such appliances as to you or such methods as were known to you that night to the best of your ability, try to find fingerprints?

A. I did.

Mr. Pope: We object to that question; we are entitled to know what methods he used; then we will determine whether they are the best methods or not.

Mr. Wilentz: Who is going to determine that?

The Court: Well, you have the full right of cross examination in respect to that. I apprehend that the Attorney General thinks that he has qualified this officer as a fingerprint expert. Do you deny that, Mr. Pope?

Mr. Reilly: I think we will handle it under cross examination.

The Court: Very well.

Q. Those two things just referred to, you tested so far as those fingerprints are concerned?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What else did you do, sir?

A. I made a general observation of the nursery, the conditions therein, noticed the crib and processed the rest of the room for fingerprints, noticed the dirt marks described by Trooper Wolfe on the floor and on the leather bag directly under the window. My duties consisted of trying to take fingerprints on various parts of the articles in the nursery, photographs on the interior of the same and processing the ladder that was brought in by Trooper Bornmann for prints.

Q. With reference to your efforts in the room, did you attempt to get any fingerprint evidence in the room aside from the note?

A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. What did you process besides the note and the envelope?

A. I processed the window sill, the window, inside and out, the crib, the screen, the light in back of the screen, the French windows, the window on the north side of the nursery, that is the north window on the east side of the nursery, the bureau drawers, a little chair that was at the foot of the crib, everything in the room that it was possible to obtain a fingerprint from.

Q. Did you find any fingerprints upon those articles?

A. No, sir; I did not.

Q. Now, what else then did you do later?

A. I later was called down into the hall by Bornmann, who had brought that ladder in to me.

Q. When you got down to the hall, did Bornmann give you a ladder?

A. He gave me two sections of a ladder. And later he brought in another section of the ladder and a chisel.

Q. And was the dowel pin in there with it?

A. It was.

Q. The two that he brought in together, were they somewhat connected, the two sections of the ladder?

A. Somewhat connected and somewhat disconnected.

Q. I see. Just a minute. I show you S-32 and ask you whether that is the ladder, the three sections, that Bornmann gave you that night?

A. May I examine that, please?

Q. You certainly may.

A. (The witness steps from the witness stand and examines the ladder) Yes, sir, it is.

Q. How about this dowel pin?

A. That dowel pin was in the ladder.

Q. How about the other dowel pin?

A. The other dowel pin was outside in the yard.

Q. Outside in the yard so that one dowel pin was in the ladder and the other was outside. Now, except for that is there anything about that section that is different than the morning of March 2nd, 1932, when it was given to you by the police officer that you referred to a minute ago?

A. No, sir; there was not.

Q. All right, sir. Then you came down, I take it, you processed this ladder?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And found no fingerprints on it?

A. I did not.

Q. What did you do then?

A. I returned to the nursery to continue my investigation there. I noticed during this investigation that there was a leather case on top of a wooden chest directly under this window, the southeast window. There was a marking of dirt –

Q. Yes.

A. On, facing the leather case on the lefthand side, apparently a slide –

Mr. Reilly: I object to the apparently.

The Witness: It was my opinion at that time –

Mr. Reilly: I object to your opinion.

The Court: Well, just tell us what you found.

The Witness: This dirt mark on the leather case. Directly under that on the floor there was another dirt mark.

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Just wait a minute. We will identify the leather case which you are talking about, which I think has already been done. I show you Exhibit S-11. You notice a leather case there right near the southeast window?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the leather case you are referring to?

A. It is.

Q. Now, on what part of the leather case was the dirt smudged?

A. Facing the leather case it was on the lefthand corner. Nearest to the crib.

Q. Then what did you do? What else did you see, rather?

A. I noticed on the floor directly under that there was a dirt smudge. And in the middle of the floor, going in a direction to the crib from the window there was another dirt marking on the floor.

Q. Did you test those? Did you make any test with reference to them of any kind at all?

A. Other than noticing the color of the dirt in the yard and the color on the floor, that was the only test that I made.

Q. Now, then, what did you do, sir?

A. I continued my investigation the following morning, as soon as it got light outside and made photographs of outside conditions.

Q. Now, did you – I notice that S-36 is the picture of a footprint. Did you do anything about encasing it?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you do anything about preserving it?

A. It was preserved when it was pointed out to me. Lieutenant Lang was in custody of it to see that nobody destroyed it or tampered with it in any way.

Q. I see, but you did nothing of your own account to test it, measure it, preserve it, encase it, or anything else?

A. No, sir.

Q. With reference to the dowel pin attached to one of the sections – Now, was the ladder which Lieutenant Bornmann gave to you on the premises assembled together in three sections?

A. No, sir; it was not.

Q. I mean eventually was it put together?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Was it put together in your presence, the very ladder that was there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was it placed against the house?

A. It was.

Q. What did you observe when you did that?

A. I observed that at the top section, that is, the top of the second section, where the ladder rested against the wall of the house, that there were markings, that is the width of the ladder about an inch and a half to two inches above that top section of the second ladder.

Q. I don't understand about that inch and a half that you were just talking about.

A. Placing the ladder –

Q. First, when you placed the ladder did you place the ladder in the indentation shown near the boardwalk in Exhibit S-37?

A. I did.

Q. That is where you rested the ladder?

A. Exactly.

Q. All right. Now, were the two sections of the ladder and were the foot of the ladder there in those two holes – By the way, did they fit?

A. Exactly.

Q. All right, sir. Then since it did fit you put it against the house at that point?

A. I did.

Mr. Reilly: Again you are leading. I am sorry, but my brothers of the Bar are so nervous from your leading I must object.Mr. Wilentz: I think maybe you are right, but sometimes in our enthusiasm – we forget.

Q. Is this the picture of the ladder as you placed it with the two pieces of wood in those holes shown in S-37?

A. It is.

Q. Does it correctly portray the ladder placed against the east side of the house, the bottom part of the ladder in the indentations shown in S-33?

A. It does.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

Mr. Reilly: We object to it.

The Court: Object?

Mr. Reilly: We do.

The Court: On what grounds?

Mr. Reilly: On the ground that it does not conform to the testimony heretofore given. It shows a window of a third floor, apparently the nursery, with the shutters off, window open, the general condition not as heretofore testified to.

The Court: Well, it purports to be a photograph of an experiment. Do you put your objection upon that ground?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir. Also upon the ground that it portrays and might portray and convey to the jury a wrong impression. It does not conform to the evidence as given heretofore, the physical condition of the outside of that house.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, it is offered for the purpose of illustration. It is intended to be helpful to the Court and to the jury, and there is nothing about that except the open windows – It is the same ladder, it is the same house – and there is nothing about that picture that the Court cannot instruct the jury about if it so happens that it should escape their memory, the fact that the windows we claim were closed at the time. But I think that it will be helpful and I don't see why there should be objection if it is going to be helpful.

Mr. Reilly: Whether it is helpful or not we are relying upon the strict rules of evidence. I think we are perfectly within our rights.

The Court: I suppose the true rule is that either side has a right to make an experiment under substantially the conditions which are of interest to the case and to prove the result of that experiment. That is the rule; but this proposition seems to be rather an extension of the rule and I would think that at the moment I ought to sustain this objection.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, if your Honor pleases, before there is anything like that, let me state very respectfully, that I cannot see how it is anything but a simple experiment and not an extension of the rule; because we have not only the same house, but we have not brought a strange ladder on the theory that someone may have brought one to fit; we have the very same ladder, the very indentations there, the same house, everything identical, except for the physical fact that a window may have been closed or opened, which is a minor matter after all ... we have certainly used only those things that were there, without a foreign object.

Mr. Reilly: If I may look at the photograph, there is no evidence in this case, either direct or, to my mind, circumstantial to this case, that the child was passed out that window and down any ladder or down this ladder, and I contend that this is merely an experiment with a ladder found seventy-five feet away, brought to the house and placed in some holes; the shutters are taken off the house, off the window; the window is left open, to convey to this jury an improper idea ... that it would be possible to go up the ladder against the shutters, open the shutters with the ladder leaning against them, come down, then with your window open go up the ladder again without moving the ladder, go in a window, take the child out and come down the ladder again, and still shut the shutters after you, and leave a note, your visiting card, on the radiator.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, may I suggest to my delightful adversary's summation that this ladder when placed in the manner that we are attempting to show it with the two sections, and I don't want my adversary to get impatient, because we will show it, placed roughly –

Mr. Reilly: I am not getting impatient.

Mr. Wilentz: - placed right up against that building, is placed in such a way that it never approaches the shutters and the shutters have got nothing to do with it. Underneath the window it falls, when you place the ladder in the two holes, the shutters are no obstruction at all, having nothing to do with this case. That is the main reason I think this experiment is necessary, an illustration. Let him take that ladder and take that view and situation as an experiment and let him explain it away.

Mr. Reilly: Now it seems to be the contention of the General that he brings in a ladder of three sections of which only two were used.

Mr. Wilentz: That's right; we will prove that.

Mr. Reilly: That is entirely different from his opening. "I will bring in a ladder of three sections" up which you say this kidnapper went. Now you are trying to hedge and say he went up two.

Mr. Wilentz: No. You say we are hedging. I want to show you that there is no hedging, the very ladder and we will show that that was used in the kidnapping and the murder.

The Court: Well, I am inclined to think at this moment that the State should be confined to proof by the witnesses who can speak concerning what sort of an experiment was made, and he may state the result of that experiment subject to the Court's ruling, and after all that is done, then if there seems to be any necessity for the picture of this experiment, then we will rule on the picture.

Mr. Wilentz: Thank you, sir and I withdraw the offer.

Q. And, Kelley, tell us just exactly what you did in this experiment?

A. In this experiment I placed the ladder, with two sections, with the lower part resting in these two marks that were found. The bottom section was placed in those marks and the top part of the ladder rested against the house. Upon examination I found that where the top section of the ladder rested against the house, that directly over the top two rungs, there were two marks about an inch and a half to two and half inches long that could in my opinion be cause—

Mr. Reilly: I object to your opinion.

Q. Not in your opinion, what did they do with them right with the ladder?

A. They were right with the ladder; yes, sir.

Q. What kind of marks were they?

A. Ladder marks.

Mr. Reilly: I move to strike that out as calling for a conclusion, unless the ladder in his experiment made the marks.

The Court: I decline to strike it out.

Q. And now, did you also make an experiment with three sections?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you find when the ladder with three sections was placed against the house?

A. It went up above the window.

Q. All right sir; now, when you got up this second – with the ladder, the two sections, did you take a look at the shutter?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What kind of material was on the side of this house?

A. Stone.

Q. What color was the stone?

A. White. I would say whitewash, it was painted with a whitewash or white paint.

Q. Were the marks that you speak of, that you saw when you placed the two sections against the house, the marks that you referred to before as ladder marks, were they plain?

A. Very. The gray of the stone showed through just a bit.

Q. Now, with reference to that particular top section of ladder, did you notice whether there were any marks on the top of the ladder?

A. When the ladder was brought in to me by Bornmann, I noticed on the top inside section of No. 2 that rested against the top that we are referring to now there were two white marks.

Q. What sort of white marks were they?

A. I would say paint.

[Mr. Reilly objects, "merely a conclusion." The Court declines to strike.]

Mr. Wilentz: Now, if your Honor please, it is just about the closing hour and it is still quite stuffy here. Would your Honor mind if we steal these two minutes and adjourn at this time before we go into another subject?

[The Court recesses for the day.]

January 8, 1935: FIFTH DAY

FRANK KELLY resumed the stand.

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Officer, you remember this nursery room, do you not? I think that somewhere in the center of that room there was a table and chair?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What have you to say as to whether or not the table was in direct line between the southeast window and the crib?

A. You could have walked a direct line from the window to the crib with no obstruction.

Q. As I understand yesterday, you stated in taking, attempting to take fingerprints in that baby's nursery, that you found none?

A. That is correct.

Q. You have been in court for several days, have you not? You heard Miss Gow's and Mrs. Lindbergh's testimony that they had been in the room?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You mean then that you found no fingerprints of anybody's?

A. I mean this –

Q. Just answer the question.

A. No, sir; nobody's at all.

Mr. Wilentz: Mr. Reilly, take the witness.

Cross-examination by Mr. Reilly.

Q. Mr. Kelly, how much experience have you had in taking fingerprints?

A. Six years.

Q. Where did you study?

A. While I have been in the department.

Q. Did you ever study the Bertillon system?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. And, are you the, what is known as the expert of the Police Department, the State Police?

A. No, sir, I am not.

Q. Well, who takes the Bertillon measurements?

A. It is not used, it is obsolete.

Mr. Reilly: I move the latter part be stricken out as a conclusion, "It is obsolete."

The Court: Strike it out.

Q. The Bertillon system is a system of measuring by height, breadth and general dimensions, is that correct?

A. That is.

Q. Yes, it has been used for over 100 years in foreign countries and in America, hasn't it?

A. I couldn't say.

Q. Did you bring with you the paraphernalia this morning for taking fingerprints?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Mr. Reilly: I understood from the table here, the prosecution would have them this morning.

Mr. Wilentz: Well, if counsel wants them, I will certainly get them for him sometime today.

Q. Do you think you would be able to take fingerprints and give the jury an observation?

A. I would.

Q. Yes. Now you want us to believe, do you, that you could find no fingerprints?

A. Of value.

Q. Of anybody you testified here, of anybody; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Yes. Now you know, do you not, that there are no two finger prints in the world alike. That we each have our own individual photographs on our finger prints?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that also apply to the feet?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you arrived at the house, who accompanied you to the nursery?

A. Colonel Lindbergh and Corporal Wolf.

Q. What was the first object you attempted to photograph or take fingerprints from?

A. The note.

Q. What did you do to this envelope to try and find fingerprints on it?

A. I at that time used a camel hair brush that is used by fingerprint operators and a black powder which is manufactured by Flaacke, standard fingerprint powder and the brush.

Q. First you take the powder and sift it on, don't you?

A. First I dip my brush into the bottle and sift the powder on and then brush over the surface of it.

Q. Is it not the proper way to take a fingerprint to sift the powder from the bottle over the paper and then blow it off and the powder remains where the fingerprints are?

A. No, sir, it is not.

Q. Do you not know that the brushing of your brush destroys the fingerprints?

A. I know in blowing it off you blow moisture on it and destroy the fingerprint.

Q. You can see me handle this paper?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And counsel at the table are going to handle it now. We are going to leave it right here with the clerk until you bring your apparatus. That is what you did with the note, too, I assume, you brushed it with the brush?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long were you working on the note before you gave it up as hopeless as far as fingerprints went?

A. Possibly about half an hour.

Q. After the note, what was the next place?

A. I believe my next attempt was the window sill.

Q. When you arrived at the window, you found the window closed, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Did you find the latch open or closed?

A. Open.

Q. Did you do anything to the latch?

A. Processed it for fingerprints.

Q. Finally you got over to the crib, didn't you?

A. I did.

Q. Now did you hear Miss Gow's testify that she came into the crib, she leaned over the crib, she couldn't hear the baby breathing, and that she started to feel among the coverlets? Did you hear her testify to that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you want us to believe that you couldn't even get her fingerprints from that crib where she was looking for the baby?

A. If she leaned over.

Q. She touched the crib and she felt the crib, all around the crib. You say there were no fingerprints of hers?

A. Exactly.

Q. And a fingerprint in your opinion will last how many days, if any?

A. It depends on atmospheric conditions, general conditions in the room or outside conditions.

Q. What atmospheric conditions in the nursery room would cause any fingerprint to disappear within two days?

A. I didn't say it was atmospheric conditions that caused it.

Q. What condition of any kind that you could imagine and know of could cause a fingerprint to disappear in that nursery room within two days?

A. General handling conditions.

Q. What authority did you ever study for fingerprinting?

A. I studied the Henry System.

Q. Who was Henry?

A. He is the man that invented the Henry System of classification of fingerprints and I studied that.

Q. And a man named Henry in England wrote the book?

A. As far as I recall.

Q. As far as you recall. You have never studied any American system at all, have you?

A. That is the American system that has been used by police departments in the United States.

Q. Don't you know the system used in the United States is a system devised by ex-Inspector Forrot of the Police Department of New York?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You didn't know that he was in charge of the N.Y. Police Department on fingerprinting for twenty-five years?

A. I don't know what New York does. I'm in Jersey.

Q. You didn't know he gave lectures to all the fingerprint men in the United States at least once a month?

A. I never heard tell of the man.

Q. Now, what has been your experience in preserving foot-prints?

A. Will you be more definite on that, please?

Q. Yes. Assuming that a man stepped into a muddy hole and left behind him a foot-print as has been photographed here. Outside of photography how would you preserve the foot-print?

A. If I was the only investigator, I would preserve it by measuring it, making a mould of it.

Q. Who measured it, as far as you know?

A. I believe Detective DeGaetano did.

Q. Before you arrived?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ask him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you take a mould?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, as to the ladder, do you know it has been reported that one man took over 800 fingerprints from this ladder?

Mr. Wilentz: I object to the question, if your Honor please. I think –

Mr. Reilly: All right, I am ahead of myself. I will withdraw it.

Q. Did you get any fingerprints from the ladder?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. How soon after you were finished with the ladder was it examined by Government men?

A. Do you mean a police conference, Mr. Reilly?

Q. No, I will put it this way: I don't want to anything to confuse you. The ladder was brought into the Lindbergh home in two sections, correct? They were loosely joined; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And where was it put when it was brought in?

A. I received the ladder in the hallway. I worked on it right there in the hall.

Q. What condition was the ladder in? Was it dry or wet?

A. It was dry.

Q. Wasn't it covered with frost?

A. No, sir.

Q. Cold night, wasn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There wasn't any moisture on it at all?

A. No, sir.

[Mr. Reilly then brings in the existence of another ladder, an extension ladder belonging to the Lindberghs, kept in the garage.]

Q. The [extension] ladder was brought in to you or did you go up to the garage?

A. I went to the garage.

Q. When?

A. As soon as I asked about it.

Q. Well, when – I don't know when that was, that day, or the next day, or when?

A. That day.

Q. That day. I suppose you stayed right on the job, did you, right through until about noon the next day: is that right?

A. Oh, no. I didn't leave the premises; I was right there.

Q. Until how long?

A. Until June.

Q. Couple of days – You lived right on the premises, did you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, you knew, did you not, that you were there for the purpose of preserving evidence for any trial that might ever come up: is that correct?

A. Correct.

Mr. Reilly: With the understanding that this witness is to be recalled when he comes back with his paraphernalia, I am through for the present.

Re-direct examination by Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Just one question, Mr. Reilly: do you remember about what hour it was that you processed this ladder?

A. Between one and one-thirty....

[Days later in the trial]

FRANK A. KELLY, recalled for cross examination, testified as follows:

Cross examination by Mr. Reilly:

Q. I think when you left the stand you were to go and get some paraphernalia for taking fingerprints; is that right?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. Now this piece of paper has been handled by counsel for the defense, two or three of them, and has been in the possession of the Clerk ever since. Will you take this and show the jkury how you attempt to locate fingerprints?

A. Yes, sir. Would you mind placing it there, Mr. Reilly?

Q. Sure; I will place it any place.

A. (The witness leaves the stand.)

Q. Couldn't you do it up there, Mr. Kelly, in front of the Judge and jury?

A. I believe so. Just set it there.

(The witness proceeded with his demonstration.)

Q. Mr. Kelly, on the half that you brushed over have you found some prints?

A. On the half I have brushed over I have found some ridge formations from the finger, but I would say that they are prints of no value.

Q. All right. Will you sift the others.

A. (The witness demonstrated.)

Q. You don't have to do any more, Mr. Kelly. May I have the paper.

A. (Paper handed to counsel.)
 
[Mr. Reilly reiterates his incredulity at Mr. Kelly's inability to discover any usable fingerprints, thereby casting doubt on the dusting method. Mr. Reilly then introduces the topic of a newer method, spraying with silver nitrate, to bring out the prints, even where dusting may have failed. He introduces a board, similar to the wood of the ladder.)

Q. Well, look at this board I have offered for identification. Are those finger prints?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you any silver nitrate here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you take my fingerprint off this board in front of the jury, please?

A. If it is on there, I will try to.

Q. All right. I am handing a board – I am handing the board to you. Now, will you please take it out with silver nitrate?

A. It has been found, Mr. Reilly, with the silver nitrate method of wood –

Q. I ask you to take it out, please, not how it has been found.

The Witness: Will the Court allow me to explain?

The Court: Yes.

A. It has been found that with the silver nitrate method on wood, better results are obtained after the prints are on there for a while.

Q. How long do you want my prints to stay on there?

A. Why, I could try your print on here with powder and possibly bring it out.

Q. I want it with silver nitrate. Twenty-four hours, Forty-eight hours?

A. Oh, I should say overnight would be all right.

Q. All right. How many days after the ladder was found did Mr. Hudson bring out with silver nitrate these fingerprints?

A. That would be 12 or 14 days afterward.

Q. Now suppose I put the board away.

A. By the edges, please.

Q. And don't touch it for two or three days and call you during the defense, will you bring it out then with silver nitrate?

A. I will try to bring out what is there.

Q. Now, the silver nitrate that was applied to the ladder – were you ever asked to wash those stains off?

A. I was detailed to take the stains off, yes, sir.

Q. Did you take them off?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. Were they taken off with a solution of bichloride of mercury?

A. I believe so.

Mr. Wilentz: I expect to use that, Mr. Reilly, if you don't mind. I just want you to know that.

Re-direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Tell me whether or not between the 1st of March and the 12th or 14th  of March, a new process had not been discovered?

A. It had.

Q. What was the new process?

A. The silver nitrate process.

Q. So that when you first took the test of this ladder, the silver nitrate process, as I understand it, had not yet been discovered?

A. It was not known, no, sir.

Q. And between the time f discovery of the silver nitrate process and the time you took the test on this ladder, had there been many hands touching and handling that ladder?

A. Oh, yes, very many.

Q. As a matter of fact, a great number of police officers from all over the country and others had handled the ladder at that time?

A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q. If a man carried this ladder to the Lindbergh home and he carried it with gloves and he didn't take the gloves off, would he leave his fingerprints on it?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. If a man walked into the Lindbergh nursery and took that child and he had gloves on would he leave fingerprints? So that it is only where a person does not use some instrument to hide his fingerprints that his fingerprints show: is that it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In addition to that, sir, do all impressions by fingers leave fingerprints?

A. Not of value, Mr. Wilentz.

Q. Well, when we talk about fingerprints, Mr. Reilly and myself, we mean fingerprints which can be traced or identified if the opportunity later presents itself.

A. Not all of them, no, sir.

Q. In other words, were I to take this paper, and, in the manner that I do now, and then attempt to stretch it like that (Mr. Wilentz takes piece of paper in his hands and jerks on both ends of it) would that have any effect on the prints?

A. Very much.

Q. If I touched it and just rubbed over it or handled it and moved my finger while I was doing it, would that leave a finger print or would it interfere with it?

A. It would interfere with it.

Mr. Wilentz: Thank you, Trooper, that is all.

Re-cross examination by Mr. Reilly:

Q. Well now, if Mrs. Lindbergh or Betty Gow, in closing the window, pressed their hands down on top of the window and they had no gloves on, that would leave an impression of their hands and fingers, wouldn't it?

A. I have no information that they did.

Q. I am asking you if they did.

A. I don't know.

Q. I still appreciate you are a State Trooper, but I am asking you this question: if they closed the window with their hands, and had no gloves, it would leave an impression, wouldn't it.

A. It would leave a mark.

Q. And if the baby was kidnapped from that crib and taken down the back stairs, and nobody ever went near the window, the window would not show any fingerprints, would it?

A. No.