In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Legal Gymnastics in New Jersey | 183 | legal Gymnastics in new Jersey if the police had any doubt about the guilt of their prime suspect, it was eliminated when documents from Germany arrived concerning hauptmann’s criminal record. The authorities already knew he was an illegal alien and had previously made two unsuccessful attempts to enter the country. They did not know that he had committed multiple felonies in Germany and was a fugitive escapee, despite his claim of no prior arrests. according to official records, hauptmann committed three burglaries, armed robbery , multiple counts of theft, and received stolen goods. he was arrested in Kamenz and actually escaped from custody twenty-eight days later before turning himself in the following day. on June 3, 1919, he was convicted of three counts of grand larceny, one count of armed robbery (referred to in German records as “highway robbery”), one count of petit larceny, and one count of receiving stolen goods. he was sentenced to just over five years in prison.1 after being paroled on march 30, 1923, hauptmann was sought for questioning on suspicion of three counts of theft. over a period of a few days, various factories in Kamenz were broken into and machine parts (including drive belts) stolen. he was eventually apprehended on June 12, 1923. eight days later, hauptmann escaped from jail and fled to the united states.2 at the time of his arrest in new york relative to the lindbergh kidnapping, he was still a wanted man in Germany. in the years since the trial, many have tried to dismiss or downplay hauptmann’s criminal past. a staff writer for the New York Daily News, Jay maeder, wrote an article called “Bread Thief,” in which he wrote: “richard hauptmann had once stolen a loaf of bread and gone to jail.”3 mr. maeder neglected to mention that the bread was stolen at gunpoint, along with a woman’s purse, money, and items of personal property. all of his other crimes were mysteriously omitted from the article as well. hauptmann’s criminal past does not prove he committed the lindbergh kidnapping and murder. Just because he was a burglar, robber, thief, and two-time escapee does not mean he was a murderer and/or kidnapper. he was certainly not a choirboy| 183 || 21 | | 184 | hauptmann’s ladder either; his criminal record in Germany was significant. attempts to downplay or ignore this record reveal clear bias and a lack of objectivity. hauptmann’s past (especially his two prior escapes) must certainly have been on the minds of the police after the events of Friday, september 28, 1934, the day after lindbergh’s controversial identification. That morning, hauptmann was in his cell, finishing his breakfast. When the guard collected the tray and remnants of the meal, he noticed the metal spoon was missing. When asked, the prisoner claimed he returned it. as a security precaution, hauptmann and the cell were thoroughly searched, but nothing was found. still suspicious, the guard ordered the sink and toilet checked. a plumber disconnected them and the spoon was found, broken into several pieces. one piece was sharp and quite usable as a weapon. a significant portion of the handle was bent into a hook. When shown the fragments, hauptmann denied knowing anything about them. From that day forward, hauptmann was kept on constant suicide watch. he was observed continually, and anything that could be used to harm himself, such as a belt or tie, was removed. The cell was kept brightly lit, even at night, and hauptmann was not permitted even to cover his head with a blanket when sleeping. it is unlikely that hauptmann was actually contemplating taking his own life. The evidence suggests he was actually plotting another escape. in The Lindbergh Case, Jim Fisher actually makes this accusation, contending that the hook was to be used as a key and the sharp piece a knife to slit a guard’s throat.4 it is not possible to know hauptmann’s real motive with the spoon because he denied any involvement. in fact, during a conversation with his wife (overheard by a German -speaking guard), anna described the incident, saying, “they tried to frame you.”5 That same day, arthur Koehler and lieutenant Bornmann examined hauptmann ’s attic, rail sixteen of the ladder, and the remainder of the attic board now locked in the upstairs bedroom. Koehler carefully placed rail sixteen over the exposed attic joists. The four extra holes, separate...

Share