Kaylee Rucker College Preparatory English Dr. Watkins Research Paper February 28, 2017
The Lindbergh Kidnapping: An Ongoing Case
Do fame and fortune bring goodluck or tragedy? If you ask the Lindberghs, the answer would be the latter. Famous pilot Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne had their first-born child kidnapped from their home and found dead weeks later. One man was convicted and executed for these crimes, but there was undoubtedly a second party involved. To this day, there is no clear answer as to who this person was. The Lindbergh kidnapping had heavy involvement of the parents and an unorthodox investigation; Hauptmann, the man convicted of kidnapping and murdering Charlie, may not have been the only person to organize this crime.
Charles Lindbergh was one of the most famous men of the 1900’s. He was awarded $25,000 for being the first to fly nonstop, two days and one night, from New York to Paris, France. He found the money to build a plane, Spirit of St. Louis, specially designed to make this flight. Judith Edwards, former consultant child and adolescent psychoanalytic psychotherapist, says Lindbergh was instantly famous although he didn't enjoy the fame (Edwards 22). This was also the time period of one of the worst years of the Great Depression. Author Judy Monroe Peterson explains that during the Depression people became uncivilized in how they handled getting money; the kidnapping of the wealthy for ransom became a common occurrence (Peterson 14). All morals in this desperate time were discarded. According to author Paula S. Fass, “Kidnapping was an important symbol for the general lawlessness that seemed to pervade the period of the early 1930s as a population devastated by [the] Depression seemed also beset by a collapse of the instruments of law or the will to lawfulness” (qtd. in Edwards 17). Lindbergh, being such a well-known public figure and being wealthy, was the perfect victim for a kidnapping.
The opportunity to make ransom money through Lindbergh was well-known and soon taken advantage of. On the night of March 1, 1932, little Charles Lindbergh was stolen from his crib on the second floor of the Lindbergh house in Hopewell, New Jersey, and taken out the window (Edwards 9). The nurse, Betty Gow, checked on Charles at about 7:50 p.m. Mr. Lindbergh then got home, ate dinner with his wife Anne and Ms. Gow, and finally got ready for bed. Ms. Gow went to check on the baby at 10:00 p.m. only to discover he was not in his crib (Peterson 7-8). The Lindbergh’s butler called the local police station and soon enough there were hundreds of people crowded around the Lindbergh estate. This lack of care meant that any footprints left outside that could be possible evidence were destroyed. All the evidence that remained at the scene were muddy marks on the nursery floor and on the suitcase under the windowsill (Edwards 14). When the police arrived, Lindbergh showed them up to the nursery and introduced a new piece of evidence: an unopened ransom note on the windowsill. Lindbergh had claimed that he left the note where he found it for the police to open. The note warned Lindbergh against police involvement and requested $50,000 in ransom money (Edwards 12). Lindbergh immediately took charge of the investigation. The police set up their investigation at the Lindbergh estate, making a police station out of the garage (Edwards 28). This case would become one of the biggest kidnapping cases in history.
The beginning of the investigation, the day after the kidnapping, was absolute chaos; the entire investigation took place at the Lindbergh estate as Lindbergh ran most of the investigation himself. Cars and boats were searched. Roads were closed down. Gang members would call in a report on a rival gang so that the police would search them and find other illegal substances; none of the reports actually led to a discovery of the whereabouts of the baby (Edwards 27-28). Many people offered to help in this case by acting as a go-between for Lindbergh and the kidnappers. Lindbergh chose a man by the name of John Condon to do just that (Peterson 30). Condon, and all others who helped Lindbergh in this case, pledged not to discuss any meetings with the kidnapper. Condon was to meet a man in the park with money in exchange for information on where the baby was being kept. Condon told the man he had less than the ransom amount that was requested, but the man did not care. Condon walked away with a note and the man in the cemetery, later known as Cemetery Joe, walked away with thousands of dollars. Condon later told a member of the United States Treasury that he had saved some of Lindbergh’s money by not giving Cemetery Joe the second package of money. The downfall was that the second package contained $50 gold-certificates; these certificates were the easiest ones to track the spending of (Edwards 41). This whole mission was carried out by Lindbergh and Condon alone. No government officials or police officers had any knowledge of this meeting. Lindbergh’s lack of police involvement made him the sole person in charge of this investigation. Lindbergh then searched for the boat that the note claimed Charles was on; he never found the boat (Edwards 45). After this day, all hope in finding Charles had seemed to be lost. Then, a few months after the initial investigation, two truck drivers were a few miles outside of Hopewell when they stopped to go to the bathroom. One of the drivers walked out into the trees where he found the body of a baby half buried (Edwards 49). The men went to the local police to report what they had found. Gow and Lindbergh identified the remains as that of Charles Lindbergh Jr. and the fabric of the clothing the child was wearing which was sewn by Gow (Edwards 49). The police faced heavy criticism for not checking the area around the home thoroughly enough.
Bruno Hauptmann became the main suspect in this case after spending one of the ransom notes at a store and arrested only moments later.The authority’s goal was to prove he was guilty, not find out if he was innocent.Author Noel Behn stated, “...others at the scene would later contend that they were already certain Hauptmann was both the abductor and the killer of the child” (qtd. In Edwards 68). These people, in reality, did not know anything about the man they witnessed being arrested. In further investigation of Hauptmann, he was found to be financially stable even though he had no stable form of income (Peterson 43). Where did this money come from? When Hauptmann’s home was searched, 25% of the ransom money was found hidden in his garage (Edwards 75). Authorities then sent the ransom notes to handwriting experts.Lee K. Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors and Harvard graduates, discussed how the FBI laboratory compared the ransom notes with Hauptmann’s signature and believed them to be a match (Lerner and Lerner par. 4). Hauptmann was then tried, convicted, and executed for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh.
There were multiple pieces of evidence in this case that were either not sufficient to the case or were tampered with.For starters, the ladder used to carry out the crime was sent to a wood technologist; it was found that the sixteenth rung of the ladder was a different type of wood and used for a different purpose first (Edwards 54). However, National Lumber and Millwork Company in the Bronx, the place where the lumber for the ladder must have been purchased, did not keep receipts of sales so that angle of the case was dropped (Edwards 54). That piece of evidence was not looked into enough and could have been a big asset to the case if found out who made the ladder.Another piece of unreliable evidence was the handwriting evidence from the ransom notes. In the article “Hauptmann Didn’t Do It,” it was stated, “Handwriting evidence was faked by the New Jersey police; witnesses, who were bribed or threatened, lied” (“Hauptmann Didn’t Do It par. 2). Why would authorities fake evidence and bribe witnesses? The police were said to have believed in Hauptmann’s guilt enough, and wanted to close this sensational case enough, that they did what they had to do to prevent any occurrence of an acquittal (Hauptmann Didn’t Do It par. 3). This case was controversial and heavily mentioned in the media; police, under this pressure, felt a need to solve the case. Hauptmann also gave plausible alibis for the night of the kidnapping and for the night that Condon handed over the ransom money in the cemetery (Edwards 72). These alibis seemed to be pushed aside even though they were not disproved. There was a predisposed notion that Hauptmann was guilty, making it almost impossible to change the verdict from the beginning. Hauptmann’s guilt was firmly believed, but Brian Bethune, professor and writer, explains that it was firmly believed from the beginning that more than one person was involved in this crime (Bethune par. 2).
Although Hauptmann was convicted and executed for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh, there is no plausible way, according to all evidence, that Hauptmann was the sole offender.Rupert Cornwell, Chief US Commentator at The Independent newspaper said, “Then there was the matter of accomplices. Until his arrest, the Lindberghs, the police and the media all believed a gang had carried out the crime. Two sets of footprints were discovered at the Hopewell house, as well as a discarded ladder. Even the ransom notes talked of "we” (Cornwell par. 9). There have been many speculations as to who helped in this crime. One speculation is that Charles Lindbergh himself helped in the kidnapping of his son. Speaking about the night of the kidnapping, Steve Manos, professor at The State University of New Jersey, states, ”That date also marks the first time that Lindbergh “inadvertently” missed a public speaking engagement. He came home from New York City, where he worked, instead of going to a dinner where he was to speak” (Manas par. 13). Knowing this information, did Lindbergh come home to assist in the kidnapping or was this timing a pure coincidence? If he helped in the kidnapping then the question becomes, why? An autopsy later showed that Charlie had several medical issues kept secret by Lindbergh (Manas par. 11). Why did he feel these should be a secret? Did he resent Charlie for his disabilities? Many questions arose putting Lindbergh in the position of a suspect rather than a victim.
Another suspect in this case was Hauptmann’s since-deceased business partner, Isidore Fisch. Authorities were interested in figuring out who Hauptmann’s accomplice was, considering the evidence pointed at there being a second party involved (Manas par. 6). According to Hauptmann, Fisch had left $14,000 of the ransom money in Hauptmann’s possession while he was on a trip to Germany. Fisch died while in Germany; Hauptmann claimed he then found the money in the closet, rewrapped the money, and hid it in the garage (Edwards 76). Hauptmann’s story of Fisch’s involvement was intriguing. Fisch was involved in underworld rings where he took part in financial scams: “Buying "dirty money" for cheaper than its face value, and then spending it at its full value, hoping not to be caught, was something underworld people did frequently during the Great Depression. Though Hauptmann by all rights should not have spent money that was not his, perhaps Isidor Fisch did buy the Lindbergh ransom money from one of his underworld connections or was involved in the extortion itself” (Edwards 81-82). How Fisch gained possession of the ransom money, if he was truly in possession of the ransom money before his death, is quite uncertain due to the circumstances. Hauptmann could have been telling the truth as easily as he could have been using Fisch’s name to protect another person. Fisch’s involvement in this case will unfortunately always be uncertain, but can never be overruled.
The case of the Lindbergh kidnapping was a significant case in history. It was one of the first cases to involve parents as suspects as well as being a seemingly unsolvable mystery. Lindbergh himself was, in retrospect, a prime suspect yet there was no investigation on him to speak of. He, in fact, ran most of the investigation. Fisch was another prime suspect that was looked into, but not heavily considering his death before the case made trial. Hauptmann was definitely involved in this case somehow, but the facts don’t align to show that he was the only person involved. Either Lindbergh, or Fisher, or both could have well been involved in this case.
Works Cited Bethune, Brian. “Cemetery John: The Undiscovered Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping.”Maclean's, 2012, p. 69. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A297827925/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=9415f09b. Accessed June 2017.
Cornwell, Rupert. “The Lindbergh Mystery: Could America's Most Famous Crime Be Solved at Last?” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 19 Oct. 2012, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-lindbergh-mystery-could-america-s- most-famous-crime-be-solved-at-last-8215537.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2017.
Edwards, Judith. The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping in American History. Berkeley Heights, NJ, Enslow Publishers, 2000. “Hauptmann Didn't Do It.” National Review, 1985, p. 17. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A3790224/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=0de4acea. Accessed 2017.
Lerner, K. Lee, and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors. “Handwriting Evidence from Lindbergh Case.” Crime and Punishment: Essential Primary Sources, Gale, Detroit, 2006, pp. 263–265. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX2588900114/OVIC?u=chil38234&xid=84329054. Accessed 2017.
Manas, Steve. “Was the Lindbergh Kidnapping an Inside Job?” Was the Lindbergh Kidnapping an Inside Job? | Media Relations, The State University of New Jersey, 28 Aug. 2012, news.rutgers.edu/issue.2012-08-28.1598204061/article.2012-08- 28.9479547914#.WJlgLIgrLnA. Accessed 7 Feb. 2017. Peterson, Judy Monroe. The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping Trial: a Headline Court Case. Berkeley Heights, NJ, Enslow Publishers, 2000.