If you could solve any non-JTR mystery which would it be?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "impossible" Wallace Case...

Done that. Solved. Check.

Who was "Shakespeare"?

Done that. Solved. Check.


Ask me another...

Discovering Britain’s biggest clown.....check

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know what is the best non-fiction book on the Borden case, Herlock, but did put together a bibliography for you.

https://bookriot.com/2017/09/14/new-books-lizzie-borden/

Novel -- "See What I Have Done" by Sarah Schmidt
Novel -- "The Borden Dispatches" series by Cherie Priest, "Maplecroft" is newest
Novel -- "The Murderer's Maid: A Lizzie Borden Novel"by Erika Mailman
Novel -- " The Secrets of Lizzie Borden" by Brandy Purchase

Nonfiction -- "The Borden Murders: Lizzie Borden and the Trial of the Century" by Sarah Miller. (2017)

Nonfiction -- "The History and Haunting of Lizzie Borden" by Rebecca F. Pittman (2016)

Nonfiction -- " The Life and Trial of Lizzie Borden: The History of 19th Century America's Most Famous Murder Case" edited by Charles Rivers (2015)

Nonfiction -- "Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter" by Arnold R. Brown (1991) -- one of the first modern books on this topic, I think.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the list I only just spotted your reply.

The last on your list, by Arnold Brown is one that I used to own before reluctantly selling books to make space. If I recall correctly this one was the book that had a cousin as a suspect? I could be wrong though. I recall another one of the titles that I used to own was called A Private Disgrace (I think.)

If I bought a book on the subject now it would have to be one that gives a good overview of all the theories.

Thanks again

[AmericanSherlock]

Discovering Britain’s biggest clown.....check

All authors agree on that one... except 1 who thinks the biggest clown is a "sneak thief"

[OneRound]

A very strong favourite for me is the so called, albeit wrongly, JD Cooper.

Many others merit a shout though. Even though some have been determined in the courts, I believe nearly all would agree that at least some aspects remain unclear. These include the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the murder of Julia Wallace (patently ludicrous for anyone to claim it has been solved), the Cameo murders, Craig & Bentley (in particular, did Bentley call out?), Burns & Devlin, the Beaumont children (as suggested already by John), the hitchhike murder of Barbara Mayo, the boy Ben in Rhodes, Suzie Lamplugh, Madeline McCann (overly rehearsed but still a mystery) and, of course, the A6 case.

Best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

A very strong favourite for me is the so called, albeit wrongly, JD Cooper.

Many others merit a shout though. Even though some have been determined in the courts, I believe nearly all would agree that at least some aspects remain unclear. These include the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the murder of Julia Wallace (patently ludicrous for anyone to claim it has been solved), the Cameo murders, Craig & Bentley (in particular, did Bentley call out?), Burns & Devlin, the Beaumont children (as suggested already by John), the hitchhike murder of Barbara Mayo, the boy Ben in Rhodes, Suzie Lamplugh, Madeline McCann (overly rehearsed but still a mystery) and, of course, the A6 case.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi One round,

I remember being very interested in the Lindbergh Kidnapping many years ago and namely whether or not Bruno Hauptmann was wrongfully executed. I remember there was a theory that Lindbergh had accidentally killed the baby and instead of taking responsibility was willing and happy to frame an innocent man.

Can't remember if that was a delusional conspiracy theory or if it had some plausibility. I remember when studying the case for a bit thinking Hauptmann was probably guilty but I wasn't sure. I don't really know enough about it to be honest. I might have to read some about it again.

What's your view on it?

[OneRound]

Hi One round,

I remember being very interested in the Lindbergh Kidnapping many years ago and namely whether or not Bruno Hauptmann was wrongfully executed. I remember there was a theory that Lindbergh had accidentally killed the baby and instead of taking responsibility was willing and happy to frame an innocent man.

Can't remember if that was a delusional conspiracy theory or if it had some plausibility. I remember when studying the case for a bit thinking Hauptmann was probably guilty but I wasn't sure. I don't really know enough about it to be honest. I might have to read some about it again.

What's your view on it?

Hi American Sherlock,

Let me emphasise first of all that I'm some way short of being an expert on the Lindbergh case. However, as you ask ...

... I don't believe Lindbergh caused the death of his son. However, he was a control freak who tried to take charge of the police operations and any kidnap negotiations (when it was still hoped the child was alive). This actually hindered investigations and later on caused Lindbergh to be viewed by some with suspicion.

I actually view Hauptmann as guilty (with at least one other). There are some fairly strong factors pointing that way: in particular, the currency from the kidnap being used by him and a lot more being hidden at his home. However, I suspect that the police fabricated some evidence - particularly, the makeshift ladder and the wood from Hauptmann's home being said to form part of it - to nail their man.

All in all, from my take few emerge with credit. One who does is perhaps Hauptmann's widow who was unlikely to have had any knowledge of the crime and stood by her own husband for many years until her own death.

Best regards,

OneRound

[RodCrosby]

Voynich Manuscript
Sumter County Does
Annecy Shootings

[Mayerling]

Hi American Sherlock,

Let me emphasise first of all that I'm some way short of being an expert on the Lindbergh case. However, as you ask ...

... I don't believe Lindbergh caused the death of his son. However, he was a control freak who tried to take charge of the police operations and any kidnap negotiations (when it was still hoped the child was alive). This actually hindered investigations and later on caused Lindbergh to be viewed by some with suspicion.

I actually view Hauptmann as guilty (with at least one other). There are some fairly strong factors pointing that way: in particular, the currency from the kidnap being used by him and a lot more being hidden at his home. However, I suspect that the police fabricated some evidence - particularly, the makeshift ladder and the wood from Hauptmann's home being said to form part of it - to nail their man.

All in all, from my take few emerge with credit. One who does is perhaps Hauptmann's widow who was unlikely to have had any knowledge of the crime and stood by her own husband for many years until her own death.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound, I'm going to have to do this message in several parts, as the site apparently is not operating very well when I try to leave any message. I have seen some comment about 30 minute limitations on what we write, and no explanation of why is offered.

Anyway,

1) Anna Hauptmann was admirable in her lifetime support for the innocence of Bruno (she died in the 1990s, I seem to recall). That said though does not mean she was telling the truth she knew or was a total innocent.

a) Bruno had that criminal past in Germany, and had once threatened a woman and her baby in a street robbery. He may very well have concealed the past from Anna, but that does not mean that he could hide any domineering or violent streak from her very long. Of course, she might have admired him for a domineering streak, but a violent streak?

b) In the middle of the worst depression in history, Bruno (whose carpentry business was minor prior to October 1929) suddenly was prospering - supposedly because of said business. And yet, instead of doing jobs, he's going out on hunting and fishing trips every couple of weekends. It hardly seems something Anna could see without wondering a little bit.

c) A question has always arisen in my mind about Anna in the years after she was widowed. Where did she get the money that she lived on? Maybe she had a job somewhere, but she seemed capable of financing a campaign to clear her dead husband.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Second part Oneround:

On Col. Lindbergh - there are several schools of thought regarding him and the mystery of his son's death.

1) Take charge guy - this has already been described above.

2) Genetic fanatic - to the end of his life Lindbergh believed that the human race should carefully save those who were genetically the best of the race (this would be what the Nazis would have termed "Aryans", but to be fair to the Colonel, the people of Scandanavian or German ancestry is a better description). It has become known that in later decades after World War II, Lindbergh would take trips to Europe on business, and "married" several women in Germany and (I believe) Sweden or Denmark, and had children with them (apparently Anne Lindbergh learned of his bigamy later on, and it chilled their marriage quite a bit).

This theory would have it that Lindbergh discovered (possibly by an examination by his friend and associeate Dr. Alexis Carrell, who worked on an artificial heart pump with him in the 1930s, and was also a believer in genetical improvement of the race), that Charles Jr. was somehow doomed by some imperfection to a poor health in life - maybe even feeble mindedness. So Lindbergh arranged to kill his son to reduce the tragedy to come by a sad early one. Problem here (one of them, anyway) is that to smash in the head on one's son to save him from a future dismal lifestyle sounds pretty ridiculous when you think about it!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Third part Oneround.

3) Accidental killing of Charles Jr. by Lindy - We know that the man who helped build and who flew the Spirit of St. Louis (and planned the route, and his cabin comforts) was one of the most methodical men in history. A very responsible sort. He showed this again when he and his wife Anne flew routes for Juan Trippe's Pan American Airways throughout Latin America (including jungles and the Andes) safely. He showed it again working on an artificial heart pump with Dr. Alexis Carel in the 1930s. Suddenly he''s supposed to be an irresponsible chucklehead with his baby son, and in horsing around killing said son.

Want to tell me another?

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Why Lindbergh?

Answer: His post 1936 to 1955 career, when he was sent by FDR to Germany and reported on the German Luftwaffe and how much more modern and better it was over British and French air forces (or the U.S. for that matter). He had grown up in the Midwest, heavily endowed with people from Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany, and rather negative to involvement in World War I (Lindbergh's father, also Charles Lindbergh, was a Minnesota Congressman, and opposed our entry into World War I). We got into that war, and in the 1930s there was a strong pacifist feeling in the U.S. fed on the idea we were fools to get involved. A leading isolationist from North Dakota, Senator Gerald Nye, had a series of congressional hearings about "the Merchants of Death" in the banking and armaments communities who pushed us into the war. Nye, by the way, was to make speeches, in which the bankers involved were men like the Warburgs, or Otto Kahn (who were Jews). On one occasion Nye was asked why he failed to mention J.P. Morgan Jr. in the bankers portion of the speech, and gave the lame excuse that he had to cut out some lines due to radio time considerations!!

When America First was created, Lindbergh (due to his prominence) became it's leading star. Like Nye his speeches sort of slanted towards blaming Jews for their influencing FDR's policies that favored involvement over isolation. Then came Pearl Harbor, and suddenly Lindbergh was standing out like a sore thumb (so were isolationists like Nye and Burton Wheeler of Montana). The politicians were voted into oblivion for the most part by 1944. Lindbergh would be denied re-enlistment into the military by FDR, and would have to sneak into the action was an aircraft advisor for Henry Ford, sent with planes to the Pacific. He did fly in several air battles there, and helped down some Japanese planes.

After that Lindbergh's critics could easily believe him capable of killing his infant son. I am not happy about part of his America First activity, but I really can't see the "Lone Eagle" killing his son.

By the way, for all his admiration of German culture and achievement, Lindbergh never failed to support the prosecution and conviction of Hauptmann, a German.

Jeff

[Graham]

Hi Jeff,

there are, as you well know, stories which started at the time that Charles Jr wasn't killed. One story which I believe has stood the tests of time is that the baby was kidnapped as a ploy to get Al Capone out of gaol. It's on record that Capone made an offer to find the baby on condition he was released. As a kind of support to this (possibly highly unlikely) scenario, we have Dr Condon report that he heard someone in the background talking in Italian when he was speaking on the phone to 'John'. And I've read that the corpse of a baby found by a truck-driver near the Lindbergh's house was never positively or legally identified, and was cremated very shortly afterwards. Lindbergh stated that the remains were of his son, yet seemed doubtful. Near to Hopewell was a Catholic orphans' home, and it was considered highly possible that the remains were of a child who had wandered out of that place and died of exposure. Finally, at least two men in later years claimed to be Buster, one of them, called Harry Olsen IIRC, was totally convinced that he was Charles Lindbergh Jr......hmmm.

I'd have to say that this case will almost certainly never be fully resolved, but remains as fascinating as ever.

Graham

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

there are, as you well know, stories which started at the time that Charles Jr wasn't killed. One story which I believe has stood the tests of time is that the baby was kidnapped as a ploy to get Al Capone out of gaol. It's on record that Capone made an offer to find the baby on condition he was released. As a kind of support to this (possibly highly unlikely) scenario, we have Dr Condon report that he heard someone in the background talking in Italian when he was speaking on the phone to 'John'. And I've read that the corpse of a baby found by a truck-driver near the Lindbergh's house was never positively or legally identified, and was cremated very shortly afterwards. Lindbergh stated that the remains were of his son, yet seemed doubtful. Near to Hopewell was a Catholic orphans' home, and it was considered highly possible that the remains were of a child who had wandered out of that place and died of exposure. Finally, at least two men in later years claimed to be Buster, one of them, called Harry Olsen IIRC, was totally convinced that he was Charles Lindbergh Jr......hmmm.

I'd have to say that this case will almost certainly never be fully resolved, but remains as fascinating as ever.

Graham

Thoroughly agree Graham. I find the Lindbergh case more interesting than Lizzie Borden's and that is a first rate murder case to explore.

Jeff

[OneRound]

Thanks for your considered and informative posts, Jeff.

Although you provide a lot more detail - for which, thanks - our thoughts seem to be on the same path apart from possibly in respect of Anna Hauptmann.

I would just speculate that the desire for a loved one to be innocent may be so great that it becomes an honestly held belief, however unrealistic it may seem to outsiders. Some may see parallels there with the Hanratty family.

Best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks One round and Jeff

Lindberghs Jekyll and Hyde character probably complicated a case where Hauptmann was likely guilty at least in part IMO.

As far as Lizzie, I haven't seen much to indicate that she wasn't plainly guilty. She should have been convicted IMO.