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.   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

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.   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  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.