Office
of Public Affairs
April
2003
Harrington
Fitzgerald, Jr., a mental patient in a Pennsylvania veterans’ hospital
more than one hundred miles away from his nearest relatives,
opened and quickly sampled the box of chocolates from “Bertha.”Perhaps
he thought the November 1933 delivery was an early Christmas
present, if so, it was the last one he received. Fitzgerald died
soon after eating the first poisoned treat. As the crime occurred
on federal property, Agents of the U. S. Bureau of Investigation
[the FBI’s predecessor] investigated. Mr. Fitgerald’s
sister, Sarah Hobart, quickly became the primary suspect and
so Agents solicited samples of her handwriting. These samples
along with the package’s wrapper and card were sent to
Headquarters for analysis in the Bureau’s new Technical
Laboratory.[1]
There,
Special Agent Charles Appel, a balding, meticulous investigator,
received the evidence and began
to compare the handwriting samples to the note card.[2] He
reported that the note from “Bertha”and the Hobart
samples revealed no match. More analysis could be done, he suggested,
if the investigating Agents would obtain samples from Hobart’s
husband and track down the family’s typewriter.[3] Diligent
detective work led Philadelphia Agents to a typewriter Mrs. Hobart
had conveniently sent in for repair at a local shop. Using samples
of type from the Hobart machine, Appel quickly determined that
it was the machine on which the mailing label on package of poisoned
candy was typed. Confronted with the evidence, Sarah Hobart confessed[4]
At
the time SA Appel solved this case, he was the Bureau’s
only scientist and its Technical Crime Laboratory had been in
operation for little more than a year. Its official birthday
was set as November 24, 1932; the date was arbitrarily decided
because the founding of the lab took place over several months
during the summer and fall of 1932.[5] Whatever
its birth-date, by 1935, the lab was a key component in both
the work and the image of the G-Men of the FBI and an important
force for the professionalization of American law enforcement.[6]
The
origins of the Bureau’s lab may be traced back to the
1920’s. The latest developments in the field of scientific
crime detection had captivated Hoover and other Bureau officials
for years. After he became Director in 1924, Hoover encouraged
the Bureau to keep an eye on the latest insights into Bureau
work that science provided. At first this interest was focused
on fingerprint identification matters, especially those dealing
with the discovery of latent fingerprints, but the use of scientific
analysis in other matters was becoming prominent in law enforcement
circles, and Hoover wanted the Bureau to use these methods
where applicable.
By
1930, the Bureau began using outside experts hired for such work
on a case-by-case basis. That same year the Bureau began a criminology
library for the use of its Agents and support personnel,[7] and
it took over the collection and publication of uniform crime
statistics from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
In its New Agent training program, the Bureau included expert
lecturers on subjects like:
the
use of the comparison of handwritings, the comparison of
typewritings, the taking of fingerprints, the classification
of fingerprints, moulage, ballistics and similar technical
criminological subjects.[8]
Clearly,
the application of science to criminal investigations was becoming
a Bureau priority.
The
work of Colonel Calvin Goddard brought the Bureau even more fully
into the application of science
to detective work.[9] Goddard, a pioneer in
forensic ballistics, was instrumental in the opening of the Scientific
Crime Detection Laboratory, then affiliated with Northwestern
University, in Chicago. The Bureau learned much from Goddard’s
lab and it supported many of the efforts made by this organization
over the next several years. [10]
When
the Lab began publishing the American Journal of Police Science,
Hoover strongly encouraged his Special Agents in Charge to subscribe
to it and he supplied articles on fingerprint issues and Bureau
responsibilities to the journal. The following year the Bureau
contributed three articles for the journal’s series entitled “Organized
Protection Against Organized Crime.”Hoover also sent a
number of representatives to a symposium that Goddard sponsored
on scientific crime detection where they heard Cook County Coroner
Bundsen exhort the audience: “The only way in which crime
problems in our American cities can be successfully attacked
is by the use of modern scientific methods of investigation.”
Reporting
on the Bureau’s involvement in this conference, reporter
Rex Collier noted that:
Ultra
modern detectives in the United States Bureau of Investigation
are being trained to out-Sherlock Sherlock Holmes, …the
progressive director of the bureau, J. Edgar Hoover…the
Government's most versatile detective force is a thorough
believer in science as a formidable weapon against crime.[11]
Hoover
was the primary source Collier’s article.
Training
in these methods was a key step in implementing the Director’s
vision. SA Charles Appel was equally committed to this vision.
He looked for all opportunities to secure such training and so
when Goddard’s lab in Chicago began what was one of the
first national scientific crime detection training programs,
Appel told Hoover. Hoover immediately signed Appel up for the
program. During April and May of 1931, Appel learned serology,
toxicology, moulage, metallography, hand-writing and typewriter
analysis, and other subjects as well. His fellow classmates said
the course of study had made them “mentally groggy.”Commented
one classmate, although there was no homework, “we almost
wore our arms out on those exams.”[12] Hoover
was so satisfied with the training that when Goddard asked for
a fingerprint expert to lecture at the forensic science training
school he quickly assigned a Bureau Agent to address the school.[13]
Returning
from Chicago, Appel worked to introduce scientific investigation
in the Bureau’s work. He began to sound out other experts
about what would be needed for a crime laboratory and what areas
of work it should pursue. As the Bureau explored the hiring of
expert examiners on a case-by-case basis, Appel continued to
acquire knowledge of various crime detection matters, developing
connections with other scientific crime examiners, acquiring
important articles on these issues, and soliciting catalogs of
scientific equipment that would be needed for a lab.[14]
On
July 7, 1932, Appel proposed “a separate division for the
handling of so-called crime prevention work”under which “the
criminological research laboratory could be placed.”[15] In
a memo two weeks later, Appel expressed a clear vision of the
scope the Bureau lab should have and the role it was to play
in American law enforcement:
I
believe the Bureau should be the central clearing house for
all information which may be needed in the criminological
work and that all police departments in the future will look
to the Bureau for information of this kind as a routine thing…[16]
Hoover
shared this vision and supported Appel’s work to enact
it.
By September 14, Appel reported to Hoover that room 802 in the Old Southern
Railway Building was
ready for use as a crime lab. A new ultra-violet light machine was
already set up and was ready to be used. The microscope on loan from
Bausch and Lomb would be transferred to the new room as soon as the
requisition for its purchase was finalized. A machine to examine
the interior of a gun barrel was ordered, and would be set up for
use and demonstration as soon as it arrived. Amenities were not forgotten.
Appel acquired a carpet that another office was not using and ordered
custom cabinets to hold the microscope, moulage kit, a wiretapping
kit, photographic supplies, chemicals, and other items for the lab.[17] Room
802 had been a break-room for Identification Division personnel and
Appel thought that it could double for this purpose as soon as the
lab was fully set-up.
Among
the first things Appel tackled in the new lab was evidence in
the Lindbergh kidnapping case. Earlier that year, the son of
noted aviator Charles Lindbergh was kidnapped and killed. Appel
was tasked with comparing the handwriting on the ransom notes
sent to the Lindbergh family with samples from 300 suspects.
The task took many months of fruitless effort. It finally yielded
results when Bruno Richard Hauptman was arrested. Appel identified
Hauptman as the author of the Lindbergh ransom notes based on
the similarity of the his handwriting to the notes and testified
to this at Hauptman’s trial. This identification was part
of the chain of evidence that led to Hauptman’s conviction
and execution for the crime.
During
the course of this investigation an important aspect of Bureau
policy was approved. In October 1933, policies were implemented
to ensure control of evidence coming into the Bureau and restricting
the number of persons involved in handling it. The issue arose
when, one night in October, Hoover needed the Lindbergh ransom
notes and was upset to learn that they were not in the file when
he called for them. Upset, Hoover was ready to require the lab
to send such evidence to file as soon as examination was finished.
Appel
opposed this, replying that he was still using the letters and
needed the originals to make comparisons. He also defended lab
procedures noting that by keeping evidence in the lab, chain
of custody was strengthened because only one or two persons had
contact with the evidence. Hoover agreed to the procedures Appel
had set up for the maintenance of certain original evidence in
the lab and Appel continued his work on the ransom notes.
Appel
had many other duties besides handwriting analysis. He provided
regular training to New Agent groups, including a hands-on
lesson using a dummy murder victim and contrived crime scene.
He also initiated many of the Bureau’s early reference
collections, pursuing samples of inks, dyes, tread marks, etc.
The New York Office contributed to the effort as well by overseeing
a typist who copied a watermark file held by a private individual.[18]
Under
Appel, the lab also began providing forensic services to other
law enforcement officials. Hearing of the new lab, Sherriff Ross
Smiley of Red River County, Texas, wrote to say that he had a
bloodstain from the scene of a burglary and a suspect with a
suspicious cut. He wanted to know if the suspect and the sample
could be linked. Appel wrote the sheriff that it was possible
to determine if the stain was human blood and what type the blood
was, but the state of the art in blood science at that time could
not prove whether a specific suspect had left the stain.
Another
goal of Hoover’s and Appel’s vision, though, was
not met immediately. Forensic science research was severely limited
at first. Tight appropriations prevented the Bureau from obtaining
equipment it desired and personnel to work with Appel. Even if
he had the time, certain pieces of lab equipment had been sent
to Chicago for exhibition at the 1933 World’s Fair and
would not be returned to the Bureau for several months. Given
the number of investigations Appel was then performing, his ability
to pursue other research was minimal. Still, he worked on not
only submitted evidence, but research and writing projects as
he could. During the summer of 1933, he began compiling frequency
tables for use in cases involving ciphers and pursued research
into marking bills for ransom drops.
Another
project was delayed by a lack of staff too. During the summer
of 1933, Appel began, writing an “Introduction to the Use
of Science in Investigations.”When it was finally completed
in the spring of 1934, it was titled “Scientific Aids in
Crime Detection.”Hoover was especially interested in this
project and regularly prodded Appel to get it done. On an October
1933 note reporting Appel’s progress, Tolson wrote “Christmas
Present!”Hoover replied “I fear we will all be dead
of old age before Rip Van Winkle gets this done.”The criticism
was in jest; Hoover realized the amount of work Appel was doing
and by December had arranged to assign more personnel to the
lab to aid his lone lab examiner in the rapidly increasing workload.[19]
The
handling and control of evidence submissions was a more pressing
concern. In an extortion case at Kansas City, the Bureau, and
Hoover specifically, were criticized because evidence in the
case being tried was not at the trial in Kansas City, but in
Washington, D.C. The judge threatened to throw out the charges
if the material was not obtained by the next day. In reviewing
the matter, Appel said that the lab work had not been finished
as he was preparing the exhibits for the trial. He had phoned
Kansas City with the results and it was based on that the US
Attorney had proceeded with the prosecution. Appel argued that
it was typical practice for an expert examiner to maintain control
of the original evidence until such time as he was called to
testify. The examiner would then bring the evidence and exhibits
detailing his findings to the trial. This, Appel said, was the
procedure he had been following. Hoover amended the earlier policy
and ordered that original evidence, when fully examined, should
be returned to the originating office along with exhibits created
based on the evidence.[20]
With
additional personnel, the Lab pursued a wider research agenda.
Mr. Samuel F. Pickering came on board first and specialized in
chemical analysis. By the summer of 1934 Appel had two additional
colleagues in the lab, SA’s Conrad and Parsons. Appel continued
to handle handwriting and typewriter analyses and pursued research
related to ballistics. Conrad investigated frequency tables for
ciphers, infra-red ray research, and dyes for extortion packages.
Parsons investigated the chemical development of latent fingerprints,
the marking of ransom money, and blood grouping.[21]
It
was at this point that the Bureau began to move to the new Justice
Department Building between 9th and 10th Streets and Pennsylvania
Avenue. The lab acquired two large rooms on the 7th floor of
this new building, sharing the floor with the Identification
Unit, the Single Fingerprint Section, and the Photographing,
Photostating, and Printing Section. Appel’s lab had evolved
from the former break room to a state-of-the-art facility that
fulfilled Hoover’s and Appel’s vision of a facility
providing investigative assistance to the Bureau and other law
enforcement agencies and pursuing cutting-edge research into
the application of scientific insight to the detection of crime.[22]
[1]
Memo, Appel to Director, 7 December 1933, 80-11-276.
[2]
Charles A. Appel was born in 1895 and served as an aviator in
World War I. He entered on duty on October 24, 1924 and served
in the Bureau until retiring in December of 1948. From 1932 to
1948 Appel was assigned to the FBI’s laboratory, where
he specialized in document examination. [67E-HQ-966].
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid. She was subsequently found to be insane and likely was
not tried for the murder.
[5]
The official date set by E. P. Coffey, the Assistant Director
in charge of Division 5. [Note by E. P. C. on Memo, Appel to
Director, 11/26/1932, 80-11-86]. Existing records indicate that
the lab was in operation as early as September of that year.
Evidence also indicates that Appel was performing document analysis
in his office even earlier.
[6]
The nickname “G-Men”came to be used with reference
to Bureau agents ca. 1934. Congress officially assigned the name
FBI to the Bureau in 1935. During the range of years covered
by this article, the official name of the Bureau was, successively,
the Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Investigation,
and the Division of Investigation. “Bureau”is used
throughout to avoid confusion.
[7]
Letter, Hoover to SA Hardy, 1/10/1930, 80-11-1.
[8] “History
of the Bureau of Investigation,”by Charles A. Appel, 11/18/1930,
typecopy by RCU/OPCA,, FBI, 2/2002. Moulage entailed the use
of a moulding compound to make exacting 3-D models of objects
for comparison and courtroom exhibits.
[9]
The relationship between the Bureau and Goddard began with contention
but quickly became cooperative. By the summer of 1935, though,
this cordial relationship disappeared.
[10]
The Goddard picture was from the Washington Star, 28 July 1931,
clipping in 94-1-15294-81X.
[11]
Newsclipping at 94-1-15294-53X.
[12]
Ibid. The quote is from a newsclipping, Washington Daily News,
5/15/1930, at 94-1-15284-75X [was 62-14949075X]
[13]
94-1-15294, Sec.1
[14]
Memo, Tolson to Director, 26 May 1932, 67-19269-6.
[15]
Memo, Appel to Director, 12 July 1932, 80-11-4.
[16]
Memo, Appel to Director, 26 July 1932, 80-11-6.
[17]
Memo, Appel to Director, 14 September 1932, 80-11-34.
[18]
The picture of Appel is from The Washington Evening Star, 13
February 1933, clipping in 80-11-NR.
[19]
Memo, Appel to Director, 18 August 1933, 80-11-201; Memo, Appel
to Director, with comments by Tolson and Hoover, 9 October 1933,
62-29799-1.
[20]
Memo, Coffey to Tolson, 21 December 1933, 80-11-292; Letter,
Conroy to Hoover, 29 December 1933, 80-11-293; and Memo, Hoover
to Edwards, 3 January 1934, 80-11-290.
[21]
Memo, Coffey to Tolson, 4 August 1934, 80-11-552.
[22]
Chart, August 1934, 80-11-552.
|