The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping

[louisa]

I am going from memory now, from an old Murder Casebook about this case.

Am I right in thinking that Ann Lindberg had a sister who was, to put it in basic terms, as mad as a box of frogs? Some kind of mental disorder anyway. I believe the sister lived with the Lindberg's and on one previous occasion they had found their baby in the dustbin where the sister had put him.

The thinking was that maybe the sister had committed this murder and the family decided to cover it up. They could not afford the scandal.

[Graham]

Another fascinating detail in the case is the suicide of the Lindbergh baby's nanny, Betty Gow. There have been many differing interpretations given to it.

It was actually Violet Sharpe, who was a housemad at Lindbergh's in-laws' house in Englewood NJ, who committed suicide for reasons never established.

On the night of the kidnap Lindbergh said he heard a noise like 'an orange crate' being broken up, and when the ladder was discovered it was broken at the top joint (it was in three sections, presumably to ease transportation). It was suggested that the ladder broke under the weight of the kidnapper who was carrying the baby, which he dropped to its death on the ground below. It is also interesting the the kidnapper(s) sent the baby's sleeping-suit to the Lindberghs presumably to prove that the baby was still alive. The remains of the baby found in the grounds at a later date was not wearing a sleeping-suit, only a flannel shirt which its nurse, Betty Gow, claimed to have made.

Even though Hauptmann considered himself a skilled carpenter, there seemed little point in producing a ladder which was a masterpiece of the joiner's craft if it were to be used only once. It is also significant that Hauptmann stopped working shortly after the kidnap, but continued to enjoy a relatively affluent lifestyle.

Regarding books, Ludovic Kennedy's The Airman And The Carpenter is a good read, but presumes from the start that Hauptmann was innocent and was stitched up. The Case That Never Dies is also worth reading.

G

[kidtwist]

Does that mean "I am a carpenter so of course I made the ladder" or "I am a carpenter so of course I wouldn't make such a crap ladder"?

The latter.

I believe the line got a big laugh at the trial.

[Errata]

During the trial when Hauptmann was asked if he made the ladder he replied (with derision) 'I am a carpenter'.

Does that mean "I am a carpenter so of course I made the ladder" or "I am a carpenter so of course I wouldn't make such a crap ladder"?

[kidtwist]

I quite liked The Case that Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping by Lloyd G. Gardner.
I prefer books like this one that aren't peddling a particular theory.

[Archaic]

Article

This Wikipedia actually contains quite a bit of detailed information, as well as the titles of some books written on the Lindbergh case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hauptmann

I think it's interesting that Hauptmann refused to plead guilty, even as he went to the electric chair. I've wondered if he really was innocent of the kidnapping, or if he just couldn't bear for his wife and the rest of the world to know that he had kidnapped and caused the death of a little baby.

Re: the ladder, Hauptmann was contemptuous of the rickety thing, because he was a skilled carpenter. So maybe that was just an act & he deliberately built it to look "unprofessional" to draw attention away from himself, or maybe he didn't build it after all.

Another fascinating detail in the case is the suicide of the Lindbergh baby's nanny, Betty Gow. There have been many differing interpretations given to it.

What I hope never gets lost in all the different explorations of the Lindbergh case is the one fact we can be absolutely certain of: a helpless little baby was victimized, suffered, and died.

Best regards,
Archaic

[RivkahChaya]

What are some good books on the Lindbergh case that people can recommend? Ideally I'd want a neutral work that doesn't push a conclusion, but does cover the media frenzy surrounding the case, and gives some sense of the times.

It's hard to find a neutral work on this, because even the original press coverage was sensational. Lindbergh was something of a media whore in his time. It's hard to see, because his behavior is subtle compared to what we see now on reality TV, and such, but he really was something of a narcissist. The public perception of him was that he was a hero, though. He was like Neil Armstrong, or Buzz Aldrin in the 1970s.

When his child was kidnapped, the entire country took it personally. My grandparents, who were around then, said that the country didn't take another tragedy so personally again, until the Kennedy assassination. Hauptmann never got the presumption of innocence, because someone had to pay for what happened. I wasn't there, but I think it must have been like the Casey Anthony case.

This is why I'm sort of agnostic about the case. I think the evidence that Hauptmann was involved is compelling, but I worry that there was so much pressure to solve the case, that what has come down to us historically may not let us make good judgment.

Scapegoat is an interesting book, but it is very dated. I think it was written in the early 1970s; IIRC, it details some exemplary cases where the police actually did trump up charges against people to show that such things did happen. The examples were not about the same police in the same state, or at the same time as the Lingbergh case, so they don't really prove anything, but they are still interesting.

[sdreid]

Stan Reid is a good source for info on other mysterious cases; perhaps he'll know.

Sorry but I can't be of much help. The only book I've read on this subject was Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann by Anthony Scaduto. It was a pretty good book for it's time but is probably a little dated now. There weren't really any additional suspects when this book was written so the books were all pretty much either Hauptmann did it or Hauptmann didn't do it. Obviously from the title, Saduto's took the view that Hauptmann was innocent.

[louisa]

During the trial when Hauptmann was asked if he made the ladder he replied (with derision) 'I am a carpenter'.

[RavenDarkendale]

You know if you take a good look at the "ladder" involved in the scheme, one wonders how in the world anyone could be expected to climb it and carry down a child in one arm in the first place. The rungs were extremely wide spaced to cut down in weight and make it easier to carry, It also could be broken down into three separate pieces for further convenience. Why then didn't the kidnapper take this easily carried ladder with him? I mean, yeah, the kid was dropped and killed, so they had to move him, but they could have quickly hidden the body and then taken the ladder.

Hauptman's wife always insisted he was framed, and being offered life for his confession of guilt, Hauptman refused, saying he would not confess to a crime he didn't commit. What if he made the ladder for the kidnapper who did not explain his purpose, who then paid him with part of the ransom money?

There was his handwriting, syntax, and spelling mistakes, but someone who knew Hauptman could have forged the ransom notes. I never read that his fingerprints were on the ransom notes, just his handwriting. Makes one wonder...

[Archaic]

Hi Ginger. There are a multitude of books on the case. I remember reading a huge one years ago, but more have come out.

You might want to start by googling the case, because there are some excellent websites devoted to the case. On one of the old Lindbergh case threads I know I posted some web-links to a great deal of Lindbergh case info, but alas, I'm not sure what threads they were on.

I do know if you look under this particular thread category, 'Other Mysteries', you will find previous threads with good info & further links.

One website really fascinated me because it showed some photos of part of the pedestal support of an ordinary table, and it matched the bizarre shape that was added to the kidnappers' letters to show they were 'authentic' and all came from the same source.

Stan Reid is a good source for info on other mysterious cases; perhaps he'll know.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ginger]

What are some good books on the Lindbergh case that people can recommend? Ideally I'd want a neutral work that doesn't push a conclusion, but does cover the media frenzy surrounding the case, and gives some sense of the times.

[RivkahChaya]

Anything is legal for exchange if both parties agree it is. The thing about something being legal tender in the US, as far as people were concerned in the transition from the gold to silver standard, is that gold certificates not only could be exchanged for actual gold, but must be, at any US chartered bank, or the federal reserve. After the switch to the silver standard, you could no longer exchange gold certificates for gold. You could exchange the new silver certificates for silver, and banks were legally obligated to do so. There was no legal obligation to exchange gold certificates for silver, and banks wouldn't do this (or, weren't supposed to; some managers might; the fact is, hardly anyone ever asked for this). The reason was that during the time that there were silver or gold certificates, every one was literally backed up by actual gold or silver that federal government was accountable for. The government couldn't just merrily print money it couldn't back with real precious metal.

However, people generally didn't think about it when they spent paper money, and banks continued to accept gold certificates for deposit for several years after 1933. It was at the discretion of the manager, but they were generally accepted. They were never given out by a bank, though, and an individual had a right to refuse one in change, or as pay, and ask for a silver certificate-- likewise, a business could refuse to accept them, but most didn't. It wasn't worth the ill will of the customer, who might not come back.

A gold certificate, depending on the year and the condition, is worth something to a collector, but low denominations from the 20s and early 30s are not worth much unless they are in mint (literally) condition. I have a few.

In 1964, the government stopped backing up notes with silver. Notes are worth something because we believe they are, or regard them that way. Notes printed since 1964 say "Federal Reserve Note," and "Legal Tender." Also, the law ending the silver standard allowed that silver certificates in circulation at the time became "Federal Reserve Notes," for all intents and purposes. In the 1970s, when I was a kid, I very occasionally got one in change. I don't know whether that law also applied to any gold certificates that might still be around. I guess it's a little like when the UK switched to decimal coinage, and shilling coins in circulation were worth 5 new pence.

I do know that you can spend old money. A lot of people think that vintage coins, like Buffalo nickels, for some reason, can't be used, and I amused myself as a junior high schooler, by getting rolls of non-collectible Buffalo nickels, and spending them. They'd be so worn you couldn't read the date, which was why they weren't collectible.

[Graham]

I am, of course, no expert in US currency, but as I understand it Gold Certificates were issued from around the mid-19th century until 1933. Each Certificate represented its equivalent value in actual gold and a Certificate could be redeemed for actual gold coin. In 1933 this practice was stopped and Gold Certificates became effectively illegal (and are I believe valuable to collectors these days).

Hauptmann was nailed when he paid for gas using a $10 Certificate, which he assured the gas-station owner was legal. This was in September 1934, well after the Certificates had been withdrawn, and the manager noted down the licence-plate number of Hauptmann's car. Gold Certificates from the ransom payment were also discovered along the route of a subway train which passed through the Bronx neighbourhood where Hauptmann lived.

I honestly can't remember how long ago it was when I saw the TV programme I referred to, but I do believe that it featured at least one of Lindbergh's children by Anne Morrow. It was probably a long time ago, now I think about it. For what it's worth I don't believe that Lindbergh was as steeped in Nazi ideals as some would make him out to have been; but that's only my opinion. There were plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic who expressed an admiration for what Hitler had done, and was doing, for Germany, but that's not quite the same as getting involved in selective breeding.

Graham

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding the ransom, it was purposely paid in Gold Certificates rather than dollar bills

There's no difference between "Gold certificates," and "dollar bills," unless by dollar bills," you mean "one-dollar bills," because there have never been one-dollar gold certificates, only silver certificates.

From the time the Federal reserve (cache of valuables) began issuing notes, all notes higher than one dollar were redeemable for the same amount in gold, and were therefore called "gold certificates." You could walk into a bank with a $20 gold certificate, and demand a $20 gold coin (or 2 $10, I guess), and it had to be given to you. You could walk into the federal reserve building, and demand $20 in bullion.


If you can't read the date, it's 1926

After the US went off the gold standard, the federal reserve issued silver certificates, with the same idea, and that remained that case until 1964, which is when the US stopped minting silver coins, as well (dimes and quarters minted yearly since then are a nickel-alloy over a copper-alloy center, worth a few cents, designed mainly to look and weigh about the same as the previous silver coins).



After the gold-silver transition was over, most banks continued to honor gold certificates, even though they were not legally required to do so, and most merchants continued to accept them. However, you could no longer exchange them for gold coins, because banks did not have gold. I don't know whether a bank would exchange them for silver coinage, because they were not silver certificates. It was probably up to the discretion of the manager; a bank was required to exchange silver for a silver certificate, though. But if you took several bills to the bank to deposit in your account, the bank didn't take much notice whether they were gold or silver certificates (other than very conscientious ones checking the gold ones against the "Lindy list"). Banks could sent gold notes, along with very worn or torn ones, to the federal reserve for credit, and they would be destroyed, and the bank would get new.

But they were all "dollars."

I thought that the story of Lindbergh fathering other children was nailed for once and all in a TV programme a few years ago, as being totally untrue.

I heard an NPR interview with one of Lindbergh's later children with Anne Morrow, who said that she and her full siblings did not "acknowledge" (her word) those children during their mother's lifetime, to spare her pain, but since her death, they fully acknowledge that they have the same father, and have since submitted to DNA testing.

If you saw the show during Anne morrow Lindbergh's lifetime (she died in 2001), you may have seen denials by her children, but the NPR show I heard was sometime after 2006, because it was after my son was born.

I just looked: the Lindberghs' (that is, Charles & Anne) had six children, including Charles, jr. They had two daughters, one who predeceased Anne, (but still lived into her 50s), and the other named Reeve. That sounds like the name of the person I heard interviewed. I remember it was an unusual name, but uncomplicated, if that makes sense.