In the case of the Lindbergh baby murder, I would deem that Mr. Hauptmann is innocent based on the evidence provided. The incriminating evidence of rail 16, the mixed testimony of neighbors, and the corrupt police force creates a high degree of uncertainty and credibility among the witnesses and the testimony provided. From this evidence I will attempt to prove that the information collected lacks the logistics and verifiable evidence of providing the incriminating evidence needed to prove Hauptmann's guilt of the crimes charged.
The two testimonies of Lindbergh's neighbors were later found not to be credible. One of the witnesses claimed that on the night of the crime he saw nothing. He did not see Mr. Hauptmann, a car, anything or anyone that night. Two years later the same witness contradicted his original statement by claiming that he indeed saw Bruno Hauptmann around the neighborhood the night of the kidnapping. In addition the witness added to his testimony that he was bribed by the police to identify Mr. Hauptmann as someone he saw in the area the night of the kidnapping. .
The second witness stated that he saw Bruno Hauptmann driving around the neighborhood and could identify him. The witness was an 80 year old man whose vision was impaired by cataracts in both eyes; when given an eye test the witness was unable to distinguish a flower vase from a hat. .
A third testimony from a doctor working for the Lindbergh family who was helping to retrieve the baby also provided false testimony. Doctor Condon had gone to the cemetery on the family's behalf to deliver the ransom money to the kidnapper. Upon entering the cemetery an unidentified person called the doctor with the words "Hey doctor." Later on Condon proclaimed he identified the voice of Hauptmann as the voice he heard at the cemetery. Afterwards Doctor Condon admitted he could not identify the voice of who was calling him in the cemetery as being that of Bruno Hauptmann's.