The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping

[c.d.]

Just watched an interesting show on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping. It was an investigation conducted by John Douglas, the famous FBI profiler who did a profile of the Ripper. After an extensive investigation, he concluded that the man who was executed for the kidnapping, Bruno Hauptman, was most likely guilty. But he also believes that Hauptman did not act alone. Although Lindbergh himself exhibited some suspicious behavior and was thought by some to be involved Douglas concluded that he was not.

Although I knew that Lindbergh was involved in the eugenics movement and was a Nazi sympathiser what I didn't know was that he returned to Germany in the 1950s under an assumed name and identity and fathered several children by three different German women. Apparently it was an effort to perpetuate his genes and was inspired by his belief in eugenics. DNA tests have proved that he was the father of the children.

c.d.

[sdreid]

Yes, I saw that last Wednesday. For once, I actually agree with Douglas or maybe he agrees with me because for quite some time I've thought that Hauptmann was guilty but did not act alone.

I know the program was only an hour but I felt a little shortchanged because no mention was made of either Isidor Fisch or J.J. Faulkner.

We have another new suspect but his link seems pretty tenuous to me. Maybe there's something there though.

[Errata]

I always assumed Hauptmann was guilty of bad judgement in what he was willing to do for a buddy, but not actually involved in the kidnapping. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if the child fell out the window, since he was clearly old enough to hoist himself up in the crib... right next to a window that was typically open.

It is unfair to say that Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer, as much as he was a fan of Nazi industry. He believed in Eugenics and racial purity, but no more than any other man of his day. Chiefly he was an isolationist. His affairs were also spurred by finding out about his wife's affair. He married the first girl he ever dated, and was an extremely socially awkward man. It wouldn't surprise me if he simply never thought of having a casual temporary fling, or would have known how to have one if the opportunity presented itself, which it probably did given who he was. And he didn't indulge in it in his youth. I don't think he was spreading his seed for the betterment of mankind... I think he was essentially a bigamist.

[Magpie]

I think there're two completely separate cases--the murder of the child, and the ransom shakedown.

I think Hauptmann was a (possibly unwitting) accomplice in the latter, but had nothing to do with the former.

[RivkahChaya]

I don't think there's much question that Hauptmann built the ladder. Aside from the board that came from his attic, you needed to be very good with a certain kind of saw that generally only carpenters used with much skill, to make the spaces for the rungs to fit in, and the rungs were wide apart, as though it used as few as possible, in order to be light.

The guy who wrote a recent book, and who, as a child, heard people conspiring, and discussing "Bruno," I think is tripped up by the fact that no one ever called Hauptmann "Bruno." He was always Richard. That was mentioned in the documentary.

Hauptmann had quite a lot of the ransom money, but not all of it, however, as far as I know, none of the rest has ever turned up.

Back at the time of the kidnapping, could you spend dollars in Europe very easily? or deposit them in banks? Every bank in the US was on the lookout for the ransom, but maybe not European banks. If a European bank got a cash deposit of US money, what would it do? would it put it in a vault, or immediately exchange it? How long would it take for the money to make its way back to the US then? I assume that it would get back as soon as the US ended the gold standard. I'm just suggesting that money coming from a European bank would not be scrutinized for the ransom serial numbers the way a large deposit or exchange from a private individual would be, and that would be especially true when European exchanges turned in any US cash they had before the switch to silver.

Even if Hauptmann worked alone until the ransom exchange, he may not have wanted to leave the country if he was hoping for citizenship, so he may have sent money back with a friend he knew was going to Europe, because he knew the money wouldn't be looked at carefully there.

The ransom may have gone back into US banks, and never noticed, because it came from European banks, not a person, and then it was destroyed (shredded and burned) along with all the old gold certificates.

[Graham]

Good to see this case being discussed again, as it ranks very close to the top of the list of unsolved murder cases.

Regarding the ransom, it was purposely paid in Gold Certificates rather than dollar bills, as it was thought that someone passing such certificates, which were about to be withdrawn from circulation as the USA was going off the gold standard, would be easier spotted than someone paying in dollars, even large sums. And that's exactly how Hauptmann was caught when he bought gas using a Gold Certificate, many more of which were found when his house was searched. Of course, his supporters claim that they were planted there during the search.

I don't know if US Gold Certificates would've been legal tender in Europe before they were withdrawn; dollar bills certainly were. The other 'named' member of a possible conspiratorial gang was Isidor Fisch, who returned to Germany shortly after the kidnap, and apparently died there. If he had any Gold Certificates with them, it would seem they disappeared at the same time he did.

I'm not up-to-date with the literature on this case, which has always fascinated me, but for what it's worth I'm pretty-well convinced that not only did Hauptmann build the ladder (providing you accept the evidence of the timber expert called in by the FBI) but he also used it. Again, for what it's worth, I'm also fairly convinced that the English nurse who later killed herself was in on the act. Was the baby brutally murdered, or was it accidentally killed during the kidnap? Was the corpse found near the scene that of the baby, or a child from the nearby orphanage? Although Lindbergh identified the remains as those of his son, it appears that the skeleton was very badly damaged, and that it was unlikely Lindbergh could identify the rotted remains of the clothes it wore.

It has been suggested that the kidnap was an attempt by an imprisoned big-time criminal to earn himself a release by ordering his underworld associates to 'investigate' the crime and then miraculously 'solve' it. This has been scoffed at, but to me there's a tiny little grain of believability in it. And how about John Condon? It has always seemed odd to me that a man of Lindbergh's status should accept the help of a nobody.

Anyway, what the hell. It would take a lot to convince me that Hauptmann wasn't in it up to his neck, but as to his murdering the baby in cold blood, not so sure. It's still a great subject for discussion.

Graham

[jason_c]

Just watched an interesting show on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping. It was an investigation conducted by John Douglas, the famous FBI profiler who did a profile of the Ripper. After an extensive investigation, he concluded that the man who was executed for the kidnapping, Bruno Hauptman, was most likely guilty. But he also believes that Hauptman did not act alone. Although Lindbergh himself exhibited some suspicious behavior and was thought by some to be involved Douglas concluded that he was not.

Although I knew that Lindbergh was involved in the eugenics movement and was a Nazi sympathiser what I didn't know was that he returned to Germany in the 1950s under an assumed name and identity and fathered several children by three different German women. Apparently it was an effort to perpetuate his genes and was inspired by his belief in eugenics. DNA tests have proved that he was the father of the children.

c.d.

I always assumed Hauptmann was guilty of bad judgement in what he was willing to do for a buddy, but not actually involved in the kidnapping. I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if the child fell out the window, since he was clearly old enough to hoist himself up in the crib... right next to a window that was typically open.

It is unfair to say that Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer, as much as he was a fan of Nazi industry. He believed in Eugenics and racial purity, but no more than any other man of his day. Chiefly he was an isolationist. His affairs were also spurred by finding out about his wife's affair. He married the first girl he ever dated, and was an extremely socially awkward man. It wouldn't surprise me if he simply never thought of having a casual temporary fling, or would have known how to have one if the opportunity presented itself, which it probably did given who he was. And he didn't indulge in it in his youth. I don't think he was spreading his seed for the betterment of mankind... I think he was essentially a bigamist.

Well said Errata. Lindbergh relationship with Nazi'ism was complicated. I knew nothing about these illegitimate children of Lindbergh. Is there any proof these children were fathered as a result of being inspired by Eugenics? Reading wiki(no laughing) one of his illegitimate daughters found a cache of over a hundred letters from Lindbergh to her mother. This sounds like a relationship not an experiment.

[louisa]

I also had no idea that Lindbergh had fathered other children.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread so forgive me for my ignorance about certain matters pertaining to this case.

I've always believed that Hauptmann had nothing to do with the physical kipnapping of the child, but was more of an accomplice - hiding the money, that kind of thing.

I know we shouldn't go on appearances because they can be deceptive (Ted Bundy for instance) but I just can't picture Hauptmann wanting to kidnap a child for ransom.

Wasn't there talk about Mrs. Lindbergh's sister (who stayed with them occasionally) as being a bit unbalanced mentally? Didn't the child go missing once before, only to be found, unharmed, in a waste bin near the house? The sister had put him there.

[Graham]

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. But as I said, I'm not up-to-date on the ins and outs of the case and its characters.

Graham

[sdreid]

A large amount of the ransom bills was exchanged for new notes at a bank by a man calling himself J. J. Faulkner but he was gone before it was discovered that it was Lindbergh kidnapping money. Although bank employees didn't pay much attention to him, they were sure he wasn't Hauptmann.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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