The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping

[Semper_Eadem]

That's not how Czechs spell the word; that's the Polish spelling, which Americans use, for some reason.

Just my 2 cents worth. Enjoyed reading through the topic, I'm acquainted with this case after reading a bit from a Time Life book about the 1930's and a cheesy show I watched on the History Channel. So I'm a teeny bit dim on the Lindbergh subject.

Anyways the reason for my post is that, Polish Emigrants coming to the USA spelt Czech that way which popularized it amongst us, Americans. I guess you could say we thought they would know how the name of their own country was spelled so that must be the correct way to spell it. We also have a lot of German words and spellings over here. Just goes to show what a melting pot we are over here.

Interestingly Separate spelled with an e is a common tolerated spelling over here also.

Geo~

[Mayerling]

Raven,

I agree with what you say about the 'wood technologist', not because I think he was mistaken or even a fraud, but because the police 'discovered' the 'wood evidence' a few days after Hauptmann's wife had left the house and it was unoccupied. What an incredible coincidence! That experts in wood existed and exist is beyond question - for example, dendroarchaeology is now a precise science.

It also must be said that the police were under terrific public and official pressure to solve this case, and the discovery of Hauptmann must have been seen as a gift of the gods. Yes, I do think he was stupid enough to do the things you mention - after all, the crime was committed on 1 March 1932 and the gold-certificate used to buy gas was passed on 15 September 1934 - about 2 1/2 years during which time no suspicion whatsoever had been laid at Hauptmann's door, and he doubtless thought that he was safe.

However, amongst many questions that still surround this celebrated case:

- why was Governor Hoffman of New Jersey so interested in Hauptmann that he actually had the execution delayed? Was it just a political ploy reference his ongoing differences with David Willentz, who had prosecuted Hauptmann at his trial? Or did Hoffman 'know something' that he never let on?

- what was the role, if any, of the mysterious Isidore Fisch? Hauptmann claimed that he and Fisch had been in business together, and that Fisch owed him money, about $7500, and that prior to going to Germany in 1933 he had asked Hauptmann to 'look after' what turned out to be the gold certificates handed over as the ransom money. That was Hauptmann's story of how he had come by the certificates, which the police say were well hidden in his house.

- if Hauptmann wasn't involved, how was it that when the police asked him to write a phrase using words used in the 'ransom notes', he wrote them with the same mis-spelling?

I can't say that the case against Hauptmann was 100% proven, but it does seem that he was definitely involved, and if so he was certainly not the master criminal he probably thought himself to be.

Great case, and as the man said, "It will never die".

Graham

Hi Graham,

Although it looks suspicous about the finding of that wood, I keep thinking critics of the case overstate it. As the field of wood identification was such a new one as to be actually non-existant in forensics (identifying bullets fired from the same gun had only been found in Britain and America in the previous decade - and was still being debated), how could those New York City Detectives be sure any attempt to frame Hauptmann with the wood would work out? It was really chancy, and I feel that had there been a good defense attorney for Hauptmann who knew of a possible slip there, he would have made the most of it. Unfortunately, Hauptmann's attorney was something of a lost cause himself.

By the way, an issue that is bypassed in the case is how much did Anna Hauptmann really know? Bruno did everything to protect his wife and child in the months of his legal ordeal and to his death, and Anna made quite a show demanding (even after the execution) final exoneration of her husband (as does their son - if he is still alive). But when Bruno died, how did Anna keep going? If she still had the remnant of the ransom money not recovered, you have an answer (and Anna's probably guilt).

I'd like to know more about Isidor Fish myself, but for some reason inquries at the time did not get too far. He had died back in Germany. One wonders if it was a lacksadaisical handling by New York Detectives feeling that Hauptmann was just lying, or did they find a growingly unfriendly German Government hindering inquiries (how many Germans returned in 1932 or after to Nazi controlled Germany? Fisch must have been either attracted to the changed regime or perfectly safe to go back!).

Hoffman did think he had new information, but the detective he hired (his first name was Ellis, but I can't recall his whole name) falsely imprisoned a "suspect", and ended up in jail. I can't help thinking Hoffman was half impressed by Hauptmann's insistance of innocence, but half under the delusion that if he could save Hauptmann by producing another kidnapper he would make huge political hay out of it. Instead he looked like an ass, and lost his re-election bid. Years later, after he died, it turned out he looted the New Jersery state agency of thousands of dollars - Hoffman was a crook too.

Jeff

[RivkahChaya]

Just my 2 cents worth. Enjoyed reading through the topic, I'm acquainted with this case after reading a bit from a Time Life book about the 1930's and a cheesy show I watched on the History Channel. So I'm a teeny bit dim on the Lindbergh subject.

Anyways the reason for my post is that, Polish Emigrants coming to the USA spelt Czech that way which popularized it amongst us, Americans. I guess you could say we thought they would know how the name of their own country was spelled so that must be the correct way to spell it. We also have a lot of German words and spellings over here. Just goes to show what a melting pot we are over here.

Because of the way borders changed, a lot of Czech people found themselves living in Poland at one point, so "Czech," spelled that way, became a common Polish last name. "Czech," or "Cesko," (that's that Czech spelling, in the masculine nominative, but there should be an accent mark over the C) is not a Czech last name, because it's not worth remark there.

"Pollock," spellings vary, is considered an offensive way of referring to a Polish person, and it's not the Polish word for "Polish," but it's a last name, and it's fairly common among Jews who come from Germany, Hungary, & the Czech Republic, so it's probably a word, or a shortening of a word, for Polish in some language.

There were a lot more immigrants to the US from Poland over Bohemia & Moravia (the Czech speaking areas of Europe, which have variously been part of Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Czech Republic, over the last couple of hundred years), because Poland is bigger, and because Poland has had economic problems, as well as more Jews, who were highly motivated to leave Europe. Their spellings, and lots of people named Czech, came along.

[Graham]

Jeff,

after reading your excellent post, I think the time has come for me to re-read at least a couple of books on the Lindbergh Case! Ludovic Kennedy especially, as although he claimed Hauptmann was innocent his book has a wealth of detail concerning figures in the case, both major and minor.

You're right about Hauptmann's attorney, Reilly, though. He wasn't the best. After the trial Hauptmann complained that what he described as key defence witnesses were never called.

Regarding Fish, if, as I'm sure he was, Jewish, I don't think he'd have been too eager to return to the Germany of 1933. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the reason he gave for returning was that his health was poor and he wanted to expire in his native land. I may have this totally wrong, however.

As to the other points you raised, I do need to do some revision before I come back with a response.

ATB,

Graham

[Mayerling]

Hi again Graham,

For all his one sided view on Hauptmann, Kennedy is worth rereading. So is an earlier book by Anthony Scarduto called (I believe) SCAPEGOAT: THE LONELY DEATH OF BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN, written in 1976. Scarduto seemed to base his point of view on Hauptmann being a German version of Sacco & Venzetti in the 1920s.

A brief comment on the question on the value of circumstantial evidence in the Hauptmann Trial is found in the old Modern Library edition of Edmund Pearson's classic STUDIES IN MURDER (published in the late 1930s). Besides the original five essays from the 1924 edition were a set of other essays Pearson had written before his death in 1938, and one was about Hauptmann's trial. Pearson is like a sip of tonic against the views of Hauptmann's innocence by Kennedy and Scarduto, but like them he overstates his case. He was a firm supporter of the use of circumstantial evidence (he pointed out that most crimes are committed by people who don't plan to have others witness their activities - which is true, but he neglects to mention that the overwheming pull of the circumstantial evidence must be such as to make the reviewer (the jury) have no doubts about the direction it is going, or how the evidence was acquired).

Jeff

[Semper_Eadem]

RivkahChaya, I did not know there were emigrants named actually named Czech, that would definitely explain that spelling being common here in the States. Thanks for the info,

All,

I also tend to agree that Hauptmann wore gloves when making the ladder because a lot of carpenters do wear gloves. My brother is a carpenter and wears them half the time he is working with wood so I could see Hauptmann using wood from his attic probably hoping to perhaps put it back after a 'successful' kidnapping. He probably used wood from his attic even if it was rotten as it was the depression so that was the only wood he and his fellow conspirators could afford and get their hands on readily if money was tight. Sounds to me that his luck just went south on him suddenly when that rug on the ladder broke causing him or whoever he was working with who might of had the toddler to drop said toddler, thereby causing the child's death. So I could see them panicking and leaving the ladder and perhaps quickly burying the baby. What I never understood is that they still had the gall to ask for the ransom after what had happened. If I had been in Hauptmann's shoes I wouldn't have done that. I would of kept a low profile so on the whole. Maybe Hauptmann and company weren't so smart after all.

[RivkahChaya]

They left the ransom note on the ledge before they dropped the baby-- assuming that's what happened. It's always possible they killed it on purpose, or smacked it to keep it from crying, and hit too hard. Dropping it was the police theory when the body was found, which was before Hauptmann was arrested, and since he never confessed, we don't really know what happened.

He probably used the wood from his attic because it was free, and perhaps he did intend to replace it. The rungs were far apart, which is why it was such a disaster when one broke, and the wide spacing may have been to save wood as well.

The attic board, I'm pretty sure, was used as a side piece, not for rungs.

[Graham]

probably used wood from his attic even if it was rotten as it was the depression so that was the only wood he and his fellow conspirators could afford and get their hands on readily if money was tight

Hauptmann had set up a profitable carpentry business since his (illegal) arrival in the USA, making over $50 a week, which apparently was good money in those days. At the time of his arrest he hadn't worked for 2 years, but being a good German had kept his accounts up-to-date and these showed that his income had increased significantly since 1932. What a lot of people interested in this case tend to forget is that Hauptmann was a serial criminal in his native Germany and had done time for a series of burglaries and also highway robbery. He was on parole when he left Germany to go to America - that is, he escaped and was a wanted man in Germany.

Another possibility that was raised ages ago is that Isidor Fisch was actually the man who abducted the baby, and when it was killed, accidentally or otherwise, he did the natural thing and fled - back to Germany, it seems. Maybe Hauptmann thought that if he continued to pretend that the baby was alive he'd collect the ransom money and live happily ever after. Obviously this is pure speculation.

I always found Lindbergh a bit of an odd choice for a ransom plot. He was loaded, fair enough, but a genuine all-American hero, beloved and revered, and the public outrage at the kidnap probably should have been foreseen by the kidnappers. I'd have thought the child of a rich society family would have been a more logical target, but what do I know?

Jeff, I have read Scarduto's book, but that was probably 30 years ago, and I wonder if it's still available. Kennedy's book is still on the shelves of many public libraries here in the UK, so I assume is still in print.

Graham

[Semper_Eadem]

I didn't know that Hauptmann still had money to throw around by 1932. That is interesting to know. I guess he had problems getting access to wood to make the ladder.
So Isidor Fisch was the one who might of been chosen or volunteered to do the actual kidnapping. Figured that Hauptmann might of not been alone or that someone else did the actual kidnapping as I could never see someone accidentally killing the baby and then asking for money. As I said in my first post, if it had been me I would of kept low profile and foregone asking for a ransom.

[Semper_Eadem]

They left the ransom note on the ledge before they dropped the baby-- assuming that's what happened. It's always possible they killed it on purpose, or smacked it to keep it from crying, and hit too hard. Dropping it was the police theory when the body was found, which was before Hauptmann was arrested, and since he never confessed, we don't really know what happened.

He probably used the wood from his attic because it was free, and perhaps he did intend to replace it. The rungs were far apart, which is why it was such a disaster when one broke, and the wide spacing may have been to save wood as well.

The attic board, I'm pretty sure, was used as a side piece, not for rungs.

That is what I thought too. Free Wood. I think killing the baby was an accident. The broken rung in the ladder testifies to that. I forgot about the note. I re-read up on this as I am going on memory and its been quite a while since I studied this.

[RivkahChaya]

It's one thing to have business accounts in good standing, and another to have the cash on hand to go buy a single plank, because the scrap wood you are using to make a ladder came up.

If Hauptmann had replaced the plank in his attic with anything, so that no one noticed it was missing, then probably no one would have made the connection to the ladder, and in any event, Hauptmann probably never dreamed they could connect the missing plank to the ladder. What he was worried about was someone remembering that he bought a single plank right before the kidnapping. Ordering a dozen on hid professional account would have meant a delay.

Anne Morrow's family had a lot of money, much more than Lindbergh himself; the amount of the ransom was pocket change to them, and that may have been the salient point.

However, again, we don't know what was really planned. Maybe it wasn't to collect the ransom. Maybe it was to "find" and "rescue" the baby and be a hero.

[Graham]

However, again, we don't know what was really planned. Maybe it wasn't to collect the ransom. Maybe it was to "find" and "rescue" the baby and be a hero.

Good point. I wonder if Hauptmann was the only one to try and cash in?

Graham

[Graham]

However, again, we don't know what was really planned. Maybe it wasn't to collect the ransom. Maybe it was to "find" and "rescue" the baby and be a hero.

Good point, although I'd need convincing that Hauptmann wasn't in it for the money. I would suspect that the police had plenty of calls from nuts who claimed to know where the baby was, and they'd tell for a packet of greenbacks.

Graham

[RivkahChaya]

Good point, although I'd need convincing that Hauptmann wasn't in it for the money. I would suspect that the police had plenty of calls from nuts who claimed to know where the baby was, and they'd tell for a packet of greenbacks.

Graham

I think they did, but they were fairly easy to dismiss. They also had compulsive confessers (which spell-check says I should spell that "confessors," but that's someone who hears confessions; these are people with a very complicated impulse control disorder who confess repeatedly to high-profile crimes, in spite of the fact that it's usually very easy to demonstrate that couldn't have done it) going into police stations all across the country.

The Lindberghs got other ransom notes, but not all had the ringed seal that was also on the one that had been left when the baby was taken, and the ones that did were "written" in the German-ish dialect, if you get what I mean.

I have wondered if the reason that Hauptmann decided to communicate through Condon was the fact that Condon had the idea to use newspapers (something not terribly uncommon then, but still, not necessarily something Hauptmann would have thought of), when the post, and any deliveries to the Lindberghs were being carefully monitored?

You know, there was a family who had a child close to the age of the Lindbergh child, who resembled him so much, that people were constantly calling the police and having them detained. They ended up carrying a letter from some official, the governor of New Jersey, or the chief of the state police, or something, stating that their child was not the Lindbergh baby.

Is it possible that the kidnappers were hoping to procure a similar-looking child, and after a year or so had passed, hope the parents thought they were getting their own child back? That might explain why they were drawing things out. It might even explain why Fisch went back to Europe. There were a lot more active orphanages in Europe, and it would be harder to trace a child from another country.

[Mayerling]

What a lot of people interested in this case tend to forget is that Hauptmann was a serial criminal in his native Germany and had done time for a series of burglaries and also highway robbery. He was on parole when he left Germany to go to America - that is, he escaped and was a wanted man in Germany.


I always found Lindbergh a bit of an odd choice for a ransom plot. He was loaded, fair enough, but a genuine all-American hero, beloved and revered, and the public outrage at the kidnap probably should have been foreseen by the kidnappers. I'd have thought the child of a rich society family would have been a more logical target, but what do I know?

Jeff, I have read Scarduto's book, but that was probably 30 years ago, and I wonder if it's still available. Kennedy's book is still on the shelves of many public libraries here in the UK, so I assume is still in print.

Graham

Hi Graham,

The other day I mentioned that in the Modern Library edition of Pearson's STUDIES IN MURDER they included other essays, including one on the Hauptmann Case.

A funny thing regarding Edmund Pearson - he was in many ways erudite, witty, and a wonderful read. The first true crime or criminal historian to set up bibliographies and citations for people interested in digging deeper. But he could show some negative traits as well.

Pearson was a man of the Progressive period of U.S. History (1896-1917), and his particular hero was Theodore Roosevelt. In fact he would write a biography on the 26th President. Like Col. Roosevelt, he did not like Germany under the Kaiser. Long before Wilson was forced to as for a declaration of war in 1917 against the German Empire, Roosevelt was calling for it, demanding they pay for murder on the high seas (the Lusitania torpedoing). Pearson did the same thing.

One of the essays in the book STUDIES IN MURDER deals with the three murders (in 1896) on board the ship "Herbert W. Fuller". Although the first mate, Thomas Bram, was convicted many then (and today) feel he was not the responsible party. In the Taft Administration (the murder was on an American ship on the high seas, so it was under Federal law, not that of the state of Massachusetts) Taft pardoned Bram (who resumed his nautical career).

Now if you have the original edition of STUDIES IN MURDER (or a good reprint by Dolphin books), and compare it to the Modern Library version, certain passages in the essay/chapter "MATE BRAM!" have been cut between the 1924 original and the 1938 new edition. These passages deal with the fate of the "Fuller", which was destroyed by a U-boat near Monte Carlo in 1918. Apparently the U-boat crew did give the ship crew a chance to leave the vessel before it was sunk, but they robbed the crewmembers of their valuables before they left. Pearson adds comments about the German mentality about their (and their only) rights as warriors, and ends by saying that truly Blackbeard would have spat on them (the Germans). These would have passed easily in 1924, with the still hostile feelings towards Germany in the wake of the war, but in 1938 they were all removed.

I mention this because in the Hauptmann essay I find that it is fairly up-to-date (mentioning Eleanor Roosevelt's queasiness about the circumstantial evidence), but Pearson does not restrain his still harsh feelings about that foreigner who caused the tragedy...who was German. He brings up the criminal background in Germany of Hauptmann. But he also states (and I have no way to verify this) that Bruno's favorite aviation hero was not the "Lone Eagle" but "the Red Baron", von Richtofen. Pearson may be right, but I have no way of knowing if it is true, or if Pearson was simply letting off more wind and anger at a familiar target (and this time a target his editors would not have felt entitled to an even playing field like that u-boat crew).

Jeff