From a forensics perspective, Dr. Erastus Hudson voiced his deduction that the Lindbergh kidnapping was an inside job, based on evidence with which he was personally familiar. “A point of great importance rested in the absence of any fingerprints on the nursery window and its remarkably broad sill. Kelly [of the New Jersey State Police] had powdered it a few hours after the kidnapping. No prints were found, although Betty Gow [the child’s nurse] and Mrs. Lindbergh had opened and closed the window that same night. Miss Gow had rubbed the child’s chest with an ointment, the oleaginous base of which would have augmented the secretion of the finger ridges in leaving clear prints.

“Of course, there would have been older prints as well. The reason Kelly failed to get all these prints was because they must have been washed off. Someone with a pail of water and cloth undoubtedly bathed those spots where fingerprints must have been left. They did so between the time Betty Gow put the baby to bed and about four hours later, when Kelly began investigating. » Continue Reading.

On March 13, 1932 Erastus Hudson of Plattsburgh was asked to visit the crime scene in the Charles Lindbergh home to secure whatever evidence he might produce. First using the standard dusting process, which was best for solid surfaces, he found no prints in the nursery on any items that had already been checked, confirming Kelly’s results, but he did find thirteen on the baby’s books and toys. These were extremely valuable because the baby had been born at home, and thus no fingerprints had been taken. Those gathered by Hudson were the only means of identifying the baby for certain—if he were ever found.

Turning his attention to the ladder that had yielded no prints to police experts, Hudson spent a couple of days applying his innovative process. He estimated collecting “more than 500 fingerprints and fragments, some of which were sufficient to be of value.” » Continue Reading.