The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping

[barnflatwyngarde]

Interesting new book about the Lindbergh kidnapping mystery.
It is a case that just refuses to offer up an easy solution.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lindbergh-baby-kidnapping-aviator-son-trial-mystery-xknrwnzmx

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Barn,

I can recommend The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1 by Lise Pearlman.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The ransom notes, which handwriting experts thought showed some kind of Germanic usage, anyding for example had the same signature of a Blue and red overlapping circles with holes . BRH Bruno Richard Hauptmann. He burgled the mayors house in Germany using a ladder. He was caught using some of the ransom money at a gas station. A rail of the ladder was found to have come from his attic, he had been , or was a carpenter etc etc . I have no doubt of his guilt .

Regards Darryl

[Lewis C]

The ransom notes, which handwriting experts thought showed some kind of Germanic usage, anyding for example had the same signature of a Blue and red overlapping circles with holes . BRH Bruno Richard Hauptmann. He burgled the mayors house in Germany using a ladder. He was caught using some of the ransom money at a gas station. A rail of the ladder was found to have come from his attic, he had been , or was a carpenter etc etc . I have no doubt of his guilt .

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I don't have any doubt about his guilt either. My only question is whether he acted alone, or was assisted by someone else.

[cobalt]

Can you confirm this story, new to me, of Bruno Hauptman (known as Richard for all of his life) burgling a mayor's house in Germany (where?) using a ladder? Any info on what that 'ladder' was if there had been one?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Can you confirm this story, new to me, of Bruno Hauptman (known as Richard for all of his life) burgling a mayor's house in Germany (where?) using a ladder? Any info on what that 'ladder' was if there had been one?

Hi Cobalt - From Wikipedia - After the war, Hauptmann and a friend robbed two women wheeling baby carriages they were using to transport food on the road between Wiesa and Nebelschütz. The friend wielded Hauptmann's army pistol during the commission of this crime.^[7] Hauptmann's other charges include burgling a mayor's house with the use of a ladder. Released after three years in prison, he was arrested three months later on suspicion of additional burglaries.^[8].

Regards Darryl

[cobalt]

Cheers Darryl,

I knew about the armed robbery- there's no doubt Hauptmann was an unsavoury character. But I'd need more convincing regarding the burglary by means of a ladder, which sounds rather neat for my liking. Maybe there are contemporary police records in Germany which could confirm the details.

I've read a fair bit about entry to the bedroom, the ransom note and circular coded signatures but very little about the deposition of the poor child in an area between the two Lindbergh properties. What is the official version of events? Was the child killed accidentally when falling from the ladder? Unlikely since it makes little sense to remove him from the scene- better to scarper and let others think the boy fell from his bedroom window. The medical evidence suggests death resulted from a number of blows to the head, so did the kidnapper have no intention of keeping the child alive? That would be unspeakably callous yet crossing the line from ransom to child killing seems to offer little benefit to the kidnapper. And why dispose of the dead child close to the area of kidnap, an area you might have imagined the police would search with dogs?

[Abby Normal]

Cheers Darryl,

I knew about the armed robbery- there's no doubt Hauptmann was an unsavoury character. But I'd need more convincing regarding the burglary by means of a ladder, which sounds rather neat for my liking. Maybe there are contemporary police records in Germany which could confirm the details.

I've read a fair bit about entry to the bedroom, the ransom note and circular coded signatures but very little about the deposition of the poor child in an area between the two Lindbergh properties. What is the official version of events? Was the child killed accidentally when falling from the ladder? Unlikely since it makes little sense to remove him from the scene- better to scarper and let others think the boy fell from his bedroom window. The medical evidence suggests death resulted from a number of blows to the head, so did the kidnapper have no intention of keeping the child alive? That would be unspeakably callous yet crossing the line from ransom to child killing seems to offer little benefit to the kidnapper. And why dispose of the dead child close to the area of kidnap, an area you might have imagined the police would search with dogs?

the child died when they dropped him and he fell and his hit his head. lindburgh heard it but thought it was something else. they still took the baby, hoping it was still alive and not realizing right away it was dead. early in the escape though they realized the child was dead and it was too risky to keep the dead childs body, so they dumped it where it was found.

theres no mystery in this one. it was Hauptmann. probably had an accomplice, and the lindberghs maid was probably in on it.

[cobalt]

If that's the official version the problems are still there.

First of all why bury the body close to the scene of the kidnap, especially when you have no idea if the child's disappearance has already been discovered? The area might have been crawling with police at any minute for all the kidnappers knew. Stopping a car to bury a body in an area visible from the roadside would be idiotic. More risky than taking the chance of transporting a dead child in a car in order to dispose of it far from the scene of the crime.

Second, why go through with the cloak and dagger ransom drops when for all you know the body has already been discovered (I'm assuming a media blackout might just have been possible) and your only bargaining chip has just been removed. It's an invitation to be arrested and executed.

I don't think there's much doubt that Hauptmann was 'in on it' to some extent. But I'm not sure that we know what 'it' actually was. Lindenberg's tree branch account of the noise is rather pat for my liking. And Lindberg's instruction not to attend to the child between 8 and 10pm is bizarre, even in a man known for his fastidious, authoritarian habits.

[Abby Normal]

If that's the official version the problems are still there.

First of all why bury the body close to the scene of the kidnap, especially when you have no idea if the child's disappearance has already been discovered? The area might have been crawling with police at any minute for all the kidnappers knew. Stopping a car to bury a body in an area visible from the roadside would be idiotic. More risky than taking the chance of transporting a dead child in a car in order to dispose of it far from the scene of the crime.

Second, why go through with the cloak and dagger ransom drops when for all you know the body has already been discovered (I'm assuming a media blackout might just have been possible) and your only bargaining chip has just been removed. It's an invitation to be arrested and executed.

I don't think there's much doubt that Hauptmann was 'in on it' to some extent. But I'm not sure that we know what 'it' actually was. Lindenberg's tree branch account of the noise is rather pat for my liking. And Lindberg's instruction not to attend to the child between 8 and 10pm is bizarre, even in a man known for his fastidious, authoritarian habits.

so you think he had something to do with it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Cheers Darryl,

I knew about the armed robbery- there's no doubt Hauptmann was an unsavoury character. But I'd need more convincing regarding the burglary by means of a ladder, which sounds rather neat for my liking. Maybe there are contemporary police records in Germany which could confirm the details.

I've read a fair bit about entry to the bedroom, the ransom note and circular coded signatures but very little about the deposition of the poor child in an area between the two Lindbergh properties. What is the official version of events? Was the child killed accidentally when falling from the ladder? Unlikely since it makes little sense to remove him from the scene- better to scarper and let others think the boy fell from his bedroom window. The medical evidence suggests death resulted from a number of blows to the head, so did the kidnapper have no intention of keeping the child alive? That would be unspeakably callous yet crossing the line from ransom to child killing seems to offer little benefit to the kidnapper. And why dispose of the dead child close to the area of kidnap, an area you might have imagined the police would search with dogs?

Hi Cobalt
I will have to double check but I seem to recall that John Douglas in his book "The cases that haunt us" also mentioned the robbery episode in Germany with a ladder.

I am with Abby in the fact that I believe the killer accidentally dropped the baby who then hit the window ledge below. Why the baby was then took and later discarded haphazardly, I would guess at sheer panic in both instances . The man who spoke to the go between John Condon, I am sure in one of their meetings mentioned something along the lines of "What if the baby was to accidentally die, would I be fried ? "

Regards Darryl

[cobalt]

There are plenty theories out there suggesting that Lindbergh did have something to do with it, some of them wild and wonderful. It's hard to lend credence to any of them, although Lindbergh was reputedly a known practical joker who on one occasion hid his son in a cupboard as some sort of cruel prank to alarm his wife and the nurse. One theory goes that he did something similar again but it ended tragically, and the ladder/ransom was part of a distraction. The problem for me is that this distraction was a lot more complicated and liable to unravel than simply saying that the child fell, for example, and struck his head. And would Lindbergh have been able to keep his wife and the staff onside with his lie throughout the saga? So I don't see much mileage in the theory.

There does seem to have been inside involvement of some sort though, given the changed arrangements of the family that evening which no kidnapper would have been aware of and presumably knowledge of where the child's bedroom was located. One of the maids committed suicide soon after the child's body was discovered and although she was apparently ruled out of direct involvement she perhaps had been part of some scheme. But then how would she have been able to communicate to the kidnappers that they had a 2 hour window (no pun intended) to enter the bedroom and abduct the child?

[cobalt]

Condon, unfortunately, seems more of a rogue than even Hauptmann. What happened to the money he handed over is hard to ascertain. I think some of it came his way. His accounts of meetings with the claimed kidnappers are all over the place as the police established early on.

Condon had a long standing accusation of improper behaviour towards school students which would have influenced any of his testimony if that was known to the local police. As a witness he was worthless. I suspect he was 'in on it' much the same as Hauptmann.

[Lewis C]

I don't think there's much doubt that Hauptmann was 'in on it' to some extent. But I'm not sure that we know what 'it' actually was. Lindenberg's tree branch account of the noise is rather pat for my liking. And Lindberg's instruction not to attend to the child between 8 and 10pm is bizarre, even in a man known for his fastidious, authoritarian habits.

Hi Cobalt,

Since the ladder was made from wood that came from Hauptmann's attic, I think that Hauptmann either took the child from the bed himself or held the ladder while someone else climbed it to get the child.

[Lewis C]

There does seem to have been inside involvement of some sort though, given the changed arrangements of the family that evening which no kidnapper would have been aware of and presumably knowledge of where the child's bedroom was located. One of the maids committed suicide soon after the child's body was discovered and although she was apparently ruled out of direct involvement she perhaps had been part of some scheme. But then how would she have been able to communicate to the kidnappers that they had a 2 hour window (no pun intended) to enter the bedroom and abduct the child?

I believe that the maid that committed suicide isn't the same one that was in the house that night. I think the latter was more likely to be an accomplice than the former, because being in the house, she was in better position to be useful as an accomplice.