Posted on 06/12/2012 4:50:52 PM PDT by Robwin
Through some incredibly persistent sleuthing, consultation with specialists in modern criminal investigative analysis, and a good dose of luck, author Robert Zorn has solved what has been correctly called “the crime of the century”: the Lindbergh kidnapping.
And so the [Hauptmann] case ended with as many questions open as answered, all of which are laid out in Cemetery John with precision. And then, with new evidence and equal precision, the author proceeds to answer each one.
That is amazing! What a story! I wonder where the photos are now?
Sorry, you are off by four years. Assuming a kidnapping actually occurred (there are theories that the baby died a few days earlier than reported by other means and that the kidnapping story was concocted by Lindbergh and friends and family as a cover-up), it was on March 1, 1932.
According to this book review which appeared on the Daily Caller the full details are now available and the case has been solved.
I read the Zorn book twice cover-to-cover and am not convinced at all he has solved the case. But I do appreciate the diligence of his work. (I have also read other materials on it in the past and saw the relatively new PBS Nova documentary on the case in which Zorn is a participant.). Zorn states that an erstwhile neighbor of his grandfather and his then teenage father in a German neighborhood in the Bronx, an immigrant by the name of John Knoll (who does not appear in any of the extensive official investigatory records), was the mastermind of the kidnapping and the man known as "Cemetery John," who received ransom money from an intermediary representing Lindbergh in a dark cemetery at night. But in order to implicate Knoll, he asks the reader to make too many leaps of faith, all too numerous to detail here. One of the most glaring is that the man receiving the ransom money ("Cemetery John") is immediately turned into a kidnapper, without considering the possibility that he could have been a clever extortionist, probably one of several in a group, who took advantage of the widely publicized event so as rip off Lindbergh without knowing anything about the fate of the baby.
This is a most fascinating mystery and it's unlikely to ever be solved to the satisfaction of most crime buffs. After all, it still provokes a wide range of opinion after 81 years.
My mother was a child when the kidnapping happened.
She always said that the child was mentally defective (her words) and Lindbergh couldn’t deal with the fact he had a less than perfect child so he was behind the kidnapping.
If I said 1936 was date of kidnapping then I was in error. It was Hauptmann who died in 1936.
Good circumstantial evidence is more reliable that testimonial evidence and good circumstantial evidence was produced at the trial. As certain as things can be on this earth Bruno Hauptmann was GUILTY!
No, you are correct as to the years. It was Robwin, who began the thread with the error I cited.
(1) As author Zorn and his crime experts agree, it is highly unlikely that the kidnapping - if that's what indeed happened (remember that there have been other theories) - could have been carried out by a single individual. Most feel it would have required three men, which is Zorn's theory. So if Hauptmann did it, he didn't do it alone.
(2) There was hardly any evidence placing Hauptmann at the Lindbergh estate on the night the kidnapping was supposed to have occurred. There was one elderly man with cataracts who had severe visual problems who claimed he saw Hauptmann in the vicinity. Not only was he virtually blind but he was paid off for his testimony. The best point the prosecution made in that regard was a so-called government "wood expert" alleging that a piece of a ladder found at the Lindbergh property matched part of a floorboard found in Hauptmann's attic. Of course, back then, no one would question the honesty and integrity of a government bureaucrat. But no one from the defense team was in Hauptmann's house at the time that matching piece of Wood was supposedly taken.
(3) There is no doubt that Hauptmann was caught passing a bunch of ransom bills and had possession of $14,000 of the total $50,000 in ransom currency. But that makes a good case for extortion, not kidnapping-murder. He could have been an accessory after the fact as part of an extortion gang that took advantage of the well-publicized purported kidnapping. Or he could have purchased that ransom currency at a discount at some point down a chain after it was turned over to "Cemetery John." Any of those scenarios would make him guilty, but of lesser crimes.
A defendant's demeanor shouldn't mean anything to an objective juror. Whether guilty or innocent, it usually is very difficult for any defendant to bear up well against cross-examination by the prosecution. He would generally be anxious or even angry regardless. That's why defense attorneys are usually making a mistake by letting the defendant testify on his own behalf. That's a pretty standard rule these days for the defense. Yet Hauptmann's attorneys back then were foolish enough to put him on the stand.
Oh, I’ll clear up all about Sacco & Vanzetti. Part of an anarchist terrorist group who mailed bombs to various politicians (usually the victim was the servant who answered the door). Sacco was definitely the hit man in the killing of the paymaster, Vanzetti certainly knew about it. His alibi that day is pretty good. He has been accused by another anarchist of murdering a priest in the mid-west when he and S fled to Mexico to avoid WWI.
Michael Boda, their boon companion in arms, drove the horse and carriage loaded with bombs into Wall St in 1919 that killed God knows how many people. Read Paul Avrich’s interviews with really ancient anarchists. They blow the whistle on them.
I also believe Bruno was guilty.
Can you write a memoir or short history of your grandfather? He was a real, old-style reporter. Amazing!
The controversy over Hauptman started,in the main, with that vacuous being Eleanor Roosevelt who wrote a blurb criticising the fact that circumstantial evidence was used to convict Hauptman.
Good circumstantial evidence is far better than eye witnesses as circumstantial evidence never lies.(Indeed, you claim one of the "eyewitnesses" was near blind and received money.) Once again, as far as man can be sure of anything on this earth, Bruno Hauptman was guilty of the kidnapping and murder of the child.
You liked the book and that is ok, I would point out to you another who dunnit involving the unsolved murder of Hollywood movie director William Desmond Taylor in February 1922. Do a Google search Using Taylorology. Also, WIKI has a good summary under his name of William Desmond Taylor(Not his real name.)
WaPo logic: who cares? It was just a local crime story.
Maybe not, but the witnesses who present the circumstantial evidence and lawyers who evaluate it sometimes do. Problem is that too many jurors accept too much on face value.
I know that Hauptmann may have been seen as a detestable character, but until you can place him on the Lindbergh property on the night of the purported kidnapping, you can't convict him of murder. One other important clue or lack thereof: No fingerprints were found on the ladder or even in the child's nursery.
I never heard of Eleanor Roosevelt's involvement in the Lindbergh case nor what her theory was, but I do know that Gov. Hoffman (Republican) of New Jersey thought that Hauptmann didn't perpetrate the kidnapping, but more likely that the baby died a few days earlier while under the care of his erratic aunt: Ann Lindbergh's older sister. Hoffman maneuvered to delay the execution of Hauptmann for about a year, but ran out of time because of intense political pressure in support of the death penalty for the defendant.
In a just world, Hauptmann should have been acquitted of the murder-kidnapping in New Jersey. and extradited back to New York to face charges of extortion and grand larceny, but the investigation should not have stopped at that point. Even those who believe that Hauptmann was guilty of the murder-kidnapping (like author Robert Zorn) know that he had accomplices. It could not have been a one-man job.
Never heard of the murder of William Desmond Taylor, but thanks for your recommendation.
It may be hard to find now, but there was a book titled "Lindbergh: The Crime," by the late Noel Behn, originally published in 1994 (hardcover edition by Atlantic Monthly Press) and 1995 (paperback edition by Onyx). It goes into a large amount of detail in regard to Gov. Hoffman's unofficial post-trial investigation, which is not to be overlooked.
That info about Lindbergh looking around the premises with his gun is included in several books on the subject. Your grandfather probably included that in his story from the scene. Can you tell us his name?
There are, however, a few researchers who would argue that the kidnapping either never occurred as such or was staged, and that the kidnap story was fabricated to cover-up the reality that Lindbergh or his family was involved in the child's death.
Jack Layer was my Granddad’s name. In the ‘50’s my family, before my time, had some conversations with Bruno’s widow and she swore, years later, that he was not guilty. For what that is worth.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.