MURDER OF BABY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18597, 7 January 1935, Page 11

MURDER OF BABY

TRIAL OF HAUPTMANN ‘ ‘ LINDY ’S ’ ’ ACCUSATION RIG OR OUS QUESTION INO (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Received Jan 5, 3.30 p.m.) MONTREAL, Jan. 4. A Fleinington message says that, speaking wjth evident sincerity that none in the crowded courtroom could doubt, Colonel Charles Lindbergh from the witness stand to-day twice accused Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping his child.

He made his first accusation against the stolid German carpenter under questioning by Mr Wilentz, and positively identified Hauptmann as the man whose voice he heard in the Bronx cemetery on the night when, with Dr. Condon as a go-between, he paid 50,000 dollars ransom. Colonel Lindbergh made the accusation the second time after severe cross-examination by Mr Edward Reilly, the chief detective counsel, during which the latter sought 'to implant in tho minds of tho jury the idea that the kidnapping was an “inside job” engineered by members of the Lindbergh staff of servants.

The questioner asked the witness point blank: “Do you believe Hauptmann is guilty?” Colonel Lindbergh replied: “Yes. ”

Colonel Lindbergh whs an earnest and willing witness, and stood up well under rigorous questioning, i 'Hauptmann sat rigid and stared back glassily at the witness, who looked directly at him when making the accusations.

The time—one day—occupied iu selecting the, jury for tho trial of Bruno llauptmimn in Now. Jersey seems long t-o British citizens. In British countries there aro stringent rules regarding tho right to challenge or stand aside a juror, and the selection of a jury is in no way protracted. American practice, in most of the States, differs considerably. The attorneys have the power to question summoned jurors as to their attitude on capital punishment and on any knowledge they might possess about tho ease beiorc flic court. This practice often means that the selection of a jury is a long affair. Murder trials in the United States are also of very long duration compared with those in British countries. The five weeks occupied by the Ruawaro case in Auckland was extraordinarily long, but. this period would not be unusual i’n America,

It was the Lindbergh kidnapping case which caused public agitation throughout the United States for the suppression of kidnapping. Such eases as the Hamm, Factor, Robles and llrschel kidnappings served merely to arouse public feeling further. The result was tho action of Congress in .Tune, 1932, in passing what, was called the Lindbergh Law against kidnapping. This law was amended in May last year to include the death penalty. It gives the United States Government, power to investigate and prosecute kidnapping cases, above State authorities. Since its passage, 31 of 32 kidnapping cases in which the Federal authorities have intervened have been solved, 74 persons have been convicted and 15 are awaiting trial. Two death sentences and 16 life imprisonment sentences have been imposed. The additional plight, of the criminal can also be appreciated in the fact that three suicides, two murders and two lynchings have ire suited in these cases.

The bureau of investigation of the Department of Justice at Washington, controlled by Sir. J. Edgar Hoover, lias been conspicuously successful. America’s drive against crime, incidentally, lias resulted in the deaths in the past year of such dangerous criminals as John Dillinger, Charles Floyd, Clyde Barrow, jivJ Bonnie Parker. Associates of Dillinger, namely, Harry Pierpont, Charles Makley and Russell Clark, have also been apprehended.