The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping

[sdreid]

OK - deleted due to repeat post. Don't know what happened.

[Mayerling]

Lindbergh's later life, when examined, is hardly that of the classic American Hero, and I do wonder if, even at the time of his son's abduction, he was aware that he stood the risk of being exposed as a sham, or at best a part-sham, and someone unworthy of being the Lone Eagle. Don't know, probably never will.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I'm no total fan of "Lucky Lindy" due to his pro-German stance in the late 1930s and his leadership in the "American First" group, but his basic aviation achievements (which are more than just the solo Long Island to Paris flight in 1927 - he did major work for Juan Trippe and Pan American Airways in mapping flight routes with his wife throughout the Western hemisphere) are real enough. He did deserve that "Lone Eagle" mark from the public. His failure to fully live up to it on foreign and racial matters was sad, but not a total wipe out of his achievements.

It is also now known that he did have other children by at least one German woman, so he was an adulterer. The fact that he had these kids probably influenced his family (after accepting these half siblings) from being willing to air any further dirty laundry about other children, such as those claiming they are Charles Augustus Jr. By the way, he was not the only "American Firster" who had a bigamous relationship. Henry Ford apparently had one as well, with offspring.

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks, Ginger. Autopsies didn't really have much to offer, forensically, other than to establish that a murder, rather than an accident or suicide, had taken place. Sometimes when people died of disease, autopsies were done to determine whether there was any need to be alarmed about something communicable, if a proper diagnosis had not been made while the person was living, but autopsies were mainly to determine the mode and manner of death, not to gather evidence.

I was always impressed at the thoroughness of the medical examiners in the JtR cases, and the fact that they were doctors. As I said upthread, until the 1970s, in the US, coroners were often elected in larger cities, and anyone could run, not just doctors, whereas in smaller towns, a funeral director was often the county's coroner, appointed by the sheriff, or just given the job by default.

Even through the 1980s, when nearly all chief coroners were either MDs, or people with Ph.Ds in pathology, anatomy, or some field like that, it continued to be an elected position. You didn't want to piss off a large voting block, or a powerful person.

I have no idea whether the coroner in charge of releasing the body of Chas. jr. was elected, and if so, if he was worried about the influence and money that Lindbergh himself had, or the much greater wealth of the Morrow family. Perhaps. He could also have been worried about a general public who wanted to see te baby laid to rest-- a lot of them would have been religious people concerned about the baby's literal "eternal rest." I would need to look that up-- whether the coroner was elected-- before saying that he was influenced by any of those things, though. Of course, even if he was hired, he could still be fired. I don't think coroners were appointed for life anywhere.

[Ginger]

I'm not sure when mass spectrometers were invented, but they are necessary for all but they most rudimentary of toxicology studies.

The basic technology itself is quite old, from late Victorian times. However, it wasn't until the 1960s or so that practical techniques for applying it to complex organic molecules were developed.

[RivkahChaya]

I've always found that an odd claim. Why on earth would an orphanage dump a dead child in the woods like that? If they were trying to cover up something, surely they'd have better ways to dispose of the body, burial or incineration or suchlike?

You're right, but I think it was just the closest alternate spot. You know, the next closest place with children wasn't merely another family, it was an orphanage.

Social services then, as now, does in fact, lose track of children, and at the time, a lot of "orphans" were illegitimate children who had been given up, but not adopted, because the adoption system was very different. Children in orphanages were sometimes throwaways, or people's shameful secrets, because society made illegitimacy shameful (also illegal in some places, and a woman who gave birth out of wedlock could be forced to pay a fine), and I think down deep, most people were aware of the collective responsibility for creating a situation where a woman was ashamed to claim her own child. So people were drawn to needy children, and repelled by them at the same time.

Then, I think a lot of people just didn't want the body to be the Lindbergh baby.

The orphanage was, IIRC, St. Michael's, which makes it almost certainly a Catholic institution. I wonder if the rumour had some connection to anti-Catholicism of the time?

Probably some of that too. One stereotype of Catholics at the time was that they had so many children they couldn't keep track of them, and they ran amok.

I think there is a difference in the way that human remains and crime scenes are handled, not necessarilly by Nation, but by time. Things were not handled as scientifically then as they are now.

Yes. I think your previous respondent misunderstood what you meant by time. You didn't mean the age of the remains, but the time in which the investigation took place.

It's true that people wee unaware of what forensic evidence they could get from a body, but it's also true they could actually get fewer things. I'm not sure when mass spectrometers were invented, but they are necessary for all but they most rudimentary of toxicology studies. There was no means to lift latent fingerprints. DNA was unknown. Fiber analysis was not accepted as evidence, albeit, it could be used for investigation. Analyzing insect activity was possible, but I don't think it was accepted as evidence in court, and that kind of thing is mainly useful in dating a body, which wasn't really necessary. Unless there was something that could definitively prove the body had been dead significantly longer than the Lindbergh child had been missing, it wasn't of value.

The police thought the money would flush out the culprit and it did. They had no need for the body.

[Hatchett]

I think when the remains where found the Police were informed. Certainly the newspapers knew about it. So, it could be presumed that the authorities where fine with the burial, or cremation.

[Ginger]

One of the question-marks regarding the child's remains is that very nearby was a home for orphans, and even at the time it was suggested that the remains could have been those of a child from that home.

I've always found that an odd claim. Why on earth would an orphanage dump a dead child in the woods like that? If they were trying to cover up something, surely they'd have better ways to dispose of the body, burial or incineration or suchlike?

Alternately, if a child had gone missing, surely they'd have involved the police?

The orphanage was, IIRC, St. Michael's, which makes it almost certainly a Catholic institution. I wonder if the rumour had some connection to anti-Catholicism of the time?

[Graham]

Hatchett,

I'm not sure. I'm no lawyer, but I think that when human remains are discovered, however old they may seem to be, the police have to be advised, and there are set procedures for the investigation of such remains. I remember a Time Team on some Scottish island, in which they were excavating the remains of a chapel, and when human remains were discovered they were legally obliged to call in the police. Who, in fairness, once it was accepted that these remains dated from about the 7th century I believe, took no further action and allowed the excavation to continue. I believe the first task to be performed when human remains are discovered is to determine the actual cause of death, followed by a determination of whether the cause of death was accidental, natural or criminal.

One of the question-marks regarding the child's remains is that very nearby was a home for orphans, and even at the time it was suggested that the remains could have been those of a child from that home.

Graham

[Hatchett]

I think there is a difference in the way that human remains and crime scenes are handled, not necessarilly by Nation, but by time. Things were not handled as scientifically then as they are now.

[Graham]

I don't think Lindbergh was responsible for the crime, neither do I think that Hauptmann had nothing to do with it. But I do have a feeling that Lindbergh knew rather more concerning the crime than he was prepared to admit - more than that I can't say, as it's just a gut feeling. And remember that Hoffman gave Hauptmann a very fair opportunity to 'talk' regarding the crime, and he never did. I wonder why not?

Don't know about the USA, but I think the rules regarding the handling of human remains discovered at possible crime-scenes in the UK are basically as laid down many, many years ago. In fact, possibly centuries ago.

I don't normally like speculation when discussing true crime, but this is different and it's good fun!

Graham

[RivkahChaya]

It seems to me that the unseemly haste with which Lindbergh had the child's remains cremated suggest that once he and Betty Gow had 'identified' the body he wanted all forensic evidence removed once and for all.... I also recall reading that Lindbergh's removal and rapid cremation of the remains was possibly illegal, as a proper post-morten examination was not carried out.

"Unseemly" seems to me to be judging the past in present terms. Generally, it was accepted that people could not travel far for funerals, so they were not held up while families gathered, and were done as quickly as possible. It wasn't just a matter of the body decomposing-- embalming was pretty good then: travel was cumbersome and time consuming. Just for comparison, almost every soldier who died in Vietnam was sent home for burial; only one's whose bodies could not be safely retrieved, or who were lost in fires, or plane crashes in unknown areas, were not retrieved. But during WWII, most Americans who died in Europe were buried there, at least, the ones who died on battlefields. Those who died in base or civilian hospitals were still sent home, usually. That depended on logistics, and luck.

People don't like to wait for post-mortem examinations even now, and in the 1930s, the evidence gathering aspect was very poorly understood by the public-- not only that, though, it really wasn't as intensive as it is now. They now do things like screening for toxins with a mass spectrometer, and sifting the area around the body for even the smallest thing that might be processed for DNA, fibers, or latent fingerprints. Back then, DNA was unknown, so were latent fingerprints, and fiber analysis had never been used as evidence in court.

I don't think the body would have been considered to be of much evidentiary value, once the head wound had been documented, especially when there was a plan established to track the kidnappers through the ransom money-- a plan which did in fact, work, even though it took a lot longer than was expected.

What possible motive could Lindbergh have for purposefully misidentifying the body, then trying to cover up his misidentification with a hasty funeral? I am at a loss to understand what you think Lindbergh's motive was, other than to get a painful episode into the past, and move on. It was probably terrible to think of that little body in the morgue. If they were religious people, they may even have thought that that he really needed a religious funeral ritual to be at rest, and that couldn't happen while the body was in the morgue.

Plus, there may have been gawkers and photojournalists rutting around the morgue. The best way to get rid of them was to get the body buried-- or cremated.

Even if you think Lindbergh was somehow responsible for the crime and Hauptmann was innocent, I don't see how it benefits Lindbergh to rush the autopsy, if it is such unusual behavior that it might bring suspicion. If Lindbergh was somehow responsible, than I really, really fail to see how misidentifying another body as his son helps him in any way.

You probably read that the rapid removal and disposal of the remains would be illegal today, when there are standards of procedure. Back then there were not such stringent rules. In many places, coroners were not doctors; it was an elected position; in other places, small towns, the coroner was the director of the town's only funeral home, trained as a mortician, but nothing more.

[Graham]

It seems to me that the unseemly haste with which Lindbergh had the child's remains cremated suggest that once he and Betty Gow had 'identified' the body he wanted all forensic evidence removed once and for all. The body was not only badly decomposed, but also incomplete, being minus one leg and both hands, and the skull was badly fractured. I believe that Lindbergh and Gow 'identified' the body by means of a "crossed-over toe" on one or both feet. I also recall reading that Lindbergh's removal and rapid cremation of the remains was possibly illegal, as a proper post-morten examination was not carried out. The impression I have is that for whatever reason Lindbergh wanted the forensic evidence destroyed once and for all. Why he should want this, I do not know, unless of course he had knowledge of the crime that a close examination of the remains might reveal, and which might reflect adversely upon himself. Pure speculation here, of course.

Violet Sharp was interrogated, and I understand she was unable to prove her whereabouts on the night of the kidnapping, but that her alibi was later proved after her death. How, and by whom?

Lindbergh's later life, when examined, is hardly that of the classic American Hero, and I do wonder if, even at the time of his son's abduction, he was aware that he stood the risk of being exposed as a sham, or at best a part-sham, and someone unworthy of being the Lone Eagle. Don't know, probably never will.

Great case, as I've often said.

Graham

[RivkahChaya]

It could have been because cremation was cheaper than a casket and funeral, Lindbergh had lost the total amount of the ransom after all.

Anne Morrow's family had a lot of money. If that had been a problem, I'm sure her family would have stepped up. Not to mention, that an adoring public probably would have made donations. He probably could have gotten a plot and a casket free, or at cost.

But, I think he scattered that ashes, and yes, I think it was to prevent gawkers, funeral crashers, and for the grave becoming a shrine. Even if people were sort of venerating the grave out of good intentions, or genuine grief, you can see how parents who have lost a young child who was not famous in his own right wouldn't want that. Suppose every time you wanted a private moment at your child's graveside, some stranger was there?

Quite some years ago I remember seeing a TV programme about the kidnapping. At the end there was an old guy on it who believed that he in fact was the Linberg baby, or indeed had been. He had evidence to show that when he was an infant he had undergone plastic surgery, for a reason he didnt know .... then. Now (or at the time of the programme) he was convinced it was to hide his features.

There's a guy who has a website now, and he's quite loony. He claims that the living Lindbergh children won't submit to DNA tests, because they think he wants money, but considering that they willingly submitted to tests to prove the paternity of the people in Germany who were their father's children through adultery (albeit, after their mother's death, to spare her feelings), I think they would submit to testing in his case, if there were any reasonable chance he was their brother. They probably have had detectives check him out, in case they ever need a restraining order.

I'm sure the reason they don't go ahead and have tests is that loons are never satisfied. If the tests were negative, he would probably come up with some other claim, for example, that he was Anne Morrow's only child by Lindbergh, and after that, she cheated on him as well, or that the tests were falsified or doctored. It's referred to as "goalpost moving." When your conspiracy theory doesn't pan out, instead of abandoning it, you just revise it a little, like people who thought mercury in MMR vaccines caused autism, and when the mercury was removed, and the autism rate did not change, they went on to blame the vaccine itself. When that was shown to be wrong, they started claiming that children are being given too many vaccines at once (anyone who claims the last knows nothing about the structure of virons, or how the immune system works).

[Hatchett]

Yes, I think that could be the one. Thinking back, and it was a long time ago, I am not too sure whether it was him or whether it was the narrator that mentioned the plastic surgery, and showed what was purported to be signs of plastic surgery.

I remember thinking at the time that instead of trying to disguise his features, perhaps plastic surgery to identify him more with the Linbergh baby was more plausible.

[Graham]

Quite some years ago I remember seeing a TV programme about the kidnapping. At the end there was an old guy on it who believed that he in fact was the Linberg baby, or indeed had been. He had evidence to show that when he was an infant he had undergone plastic surgery, for a reason he didnt know .... then. Now (or at the time of the programme) he was convinced it was to hide his features.

A man called Harold Olsen claimed he was the Lindbergh baby and that he had lived with gangsters until adopted by a couple called Olsen. Don't think he mentioned plastic surgery, though, so could be a different guy. There were probably dozens of men over the years who claimed to be the Lindbergh baby....

Graham