Yet Another Free Masonic Degenerate: Brigadier General Charles A. Lindbergh USAF (CAL)
YES, CAL flew 50x COMBAT missions in F4U Corsair and P-38 Lightning fighter-bombers in WW2 including shooting down a Japanese Ki-51 fighter. He figured out how to stretch out the P-38's already long range that earlier enabled IJN Admiral Yamamoto to be aircraft-assassinated. We all know CAL was a Nazi sympathizer who had to use all his political MILINDCOMP clout to get into the war--against the Japanese--and not the Germans.
However, CAL was also a degenerate Free Mason and a Eugenicist fascist sicko who was certainly capable of killing his own children who he obviously saw as mere animal off-spring of his sexual fornication. CAL got away with murdering his child as a Free Masonic degenerate plus the Amerikan sheeple being deceived. Was the weird 3x concentric circles Venn diagram, a Freemasonic DISTRESS CODE to other Freemasons to come to his aid for murdering his own Eugenically-defective, baby? And/or Lindbergh SHOWBOATING his high I.Q. that HE is the murderer. Note never got angry and bitched-out Hauptman...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIL9kMJJSc
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/venn-diagram.asp
A Venn diagram is an illustration that uses circles to show the relationships among things or finite groups of things. Circles that overlap have a commonality while circles that do not overlap do not share those traits.
Venn diagrams help to visually represent the similarities and differences between two concepts. They have long been recognized for their usefulness as educational tools. Since the mid-20th century, Venn diagrams have been used as part of the introductory logic curriculum and in elementary-level educational plans around the world.
https://www.analyzemath.com/Geometry/circles_problems.html
The 3x holes in all of the ransom notes were made by a wooden board according to Ms. Delmont:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBU3FwyIgiY
https://mdmasons.org/about-md-masons/famous-masons/charles-lindbergh/
CHARLES LINDBERGH
The lasting fame of Charles A. Lindbergh stems from his success at being the first person to cross from New York to Paris non-stop in a solo airplane flight. Piloting “The Spirit of St. Louis”, a plane that was little more than a fuel tank with wings, carrying only a few sandwiches and virtually no navigational equipment, he made the crossing in 33-1/2 hours, landing at Le Bourget Field in Paris to become one of the greatest celebrities of the twentieth century.
Like many great men before and after him, Charles Lindbergh came to Freemasonry before coming to greatness. He completed his Masonic degrees in 1926 at Keystone Lodge No. 243 in Missouri – just months before his historic flight brought him world renown. Although little of his Masonic record is otherwise known, Lindbergh did wear a square and compass pin during his flight, and “The Spirit of St. Louis” was adorned with a Masonic emblem.
As a hero of aviation, Lindbergh stood for all that the public thought of as essentially American: Independence, self-reliance, courage, and perseverance. At a time when the West had been won and most thought the frontier gone, Lindbergh showed there was another kind of frontier to explore through science and technology.
Lindbergh, as a Freemason represents a long line of explorers and adventurers down through the ages who were members of the craft. From Lewis and Clark, to polar explorers [Admiral Byrd] to astronauts such as E. “Buzz” Aldrin who [faked] walked the surface of the moon – testament to the spirit of Freemasonry, all!
-excerpted from the Scottish Rite Journal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh
In his autobiography, Lindbergh derided pilots he met as womanizing "barnstormers"; he also criticized Army cadets for their "facile" approach to relationships. He wrote that the ideal romance was stable and long-term, with a woman with keen intellect, good health, and strong genes,[139] his "experience in breeding animals on our farm [having taught him] the importance of good heredity".[140]
Anne Morrow Lindbergh (1906–2001) was the daughter of Dwight Morrow, who, as a partner at J.P. Morgan & Co., had acted as financial adviser to Lindbergh. He was also the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in 1927. Invited by Morrow on a goodwill tour to Mexico along with humorist and actor [aviation fan] Will Rogers, Lindbergh met Anne in Mexico City in December 1927.[141]
The couple was married on May 27, 1929, at the Morrow estate in Englewood, New Jersey, where they resided after their marriage before moving to their home in the western part of the state.[142][143] They had 6x children: Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr. (1930–1932); Jon Morrow Lindbergh (1932–2021); Land Morrow Lindbergh (b. 1937), who studied anthropology at Stanford University and married Susan Miller in San Diego;[144] Anne Lindbergh (1940–1993); Scott Lindbergh (b. 1942); and Reeve Lindbergh (b. 1945), a writer. Lindbergh taught Anne how to fly, and she accompanied and assisted him in much of his exploring and charting of air routes.
Lindbergh saw his children for only a few months a year. He kept track of each child's infractions (including such things as gum-chewing) and insisted that Anne track every penny of household expenses in account books.[145]
Lindbergh's grandson, aviator Erik Lindbergh (one of 8 children of Jon Lindbergh), has had notable involvement in both the private spaceflight and electric aircraft industries.[146][147]
Beginning in 1957, General Lindbergh engaged in lengthy sexual relationships with three women while remaining married to Anne Morrow. He fathered three children with hatmaker Brigitte Hesshaimer (1926–2001), who had lived in the small Bavarian town of Geretsried. He had two children with her sister Mariette, a painter, living in Grimisuat. Lindbergh also had a son and daughter (born in 1959 and 1961) with Valeska, an East Prussian aristocrat who was his private secretary in Europe and lived in Baden-Baden.[260][261][262][263] All seven children were born between 1958 and 1967.[2]
Ten days before he died, Lindbergh wrote to each of his European mistresses, imploring them to maintain the utmost secrecy about his illicit activities with them even after his death.[264] The three women (none of whom ever married) all managed to keep their affairs secret even from their children, who during his lifetime (and for almost a decade after his death) did not know the true identity of their father, whom they had only known by the alias Careu Kent and seen only when he briefly visited them once or twice a year. However, after reading a magazine article about Lindbergh in the mid-1980s, Brigitte's daughter Astrid deduced the truth; she later discovered snapshots and more than 150 love letters from Lindbergh to her mother. After Brigitte and Anne Lindbergh had both died, she made her findings public; in 2003 DNA tests confirmed that Lindbergh had fathered Astrid and her two siblings.[2][265] Reeve Lindbergh, Lindbergh's youngest child with Anne, wrote in her personal journal in 2003, "This story reflects absolutely Byzantine layers of deception on the part of our shared father. These children did not even know who he was! He used a pseudonym with them (To protect them, perhaps? To protect himself, absolutely!)"[266]
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0828319715/002-0689743-2851257?v=glance
Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Hardcover – January 1, 1993
by Gregory Ahlgren (Author), Stephen Monier (Author)
Greg Ahlgren
Best-selling author Greg Ahlgren is a criminal defense lawyer in Manchester, New Hampshire. He received his B.A. degree from Syracuse University and his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. He has been a criminal justice professor, a state legislator, and a political activist, and has appeared as a frequent guest on both national and regional television and radio shows on true crime and historical issues. His books include the alternate history time-travel novel "Prologue" and the international thriller "The Medici Legacy," and together with Stephen Monier he co-authored the true crime book Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax.
Prior to Crime of the Century's publication in 1993, most commentators on America's most famous crime had questioned Hauptmann's guilt, but had been unable to offer a cogent alternative hypothesis. Combining their respective expertise as a criminal defense lawyer and a seasoned police investigator, Ahlgren and Monier were the first to theorize that perhaps there had been no stranger abduction and that the "kidnapping" had been hastily concocted to mask a domestic tragedy. Controversial at the time of the book's original publication, this theory has now gained widespread acceptance as a plausible explanation of the Lindbergh kidnapping case.
In his 2006 novel Prologue, Ahlgren inverted the usual time-travel plot line. Instead of creating protagonists intent on preserving a recognized time line from attack by those seeking to change history, Ahlgren devised an alternative future, and then, set against the backdrop of the JFK assassination, presented his protagonists with the challenge of creating a better today.
His 2011 novel, The Medici Legacy employed a plot convention rare in an American thriller when Ahlgren created a non-American chief protagonist, Deputy Inspector Antonio Ferrara of the Italian Polizia di Stato.
Ahlgren's American Civil War novel, Fort Fisher: The Battle for the Gibraltar of the South details the 4-day pivotal battle for Fort Fisher, North Carolina in the conflict's waning days. Told from the point of view of enlisted personnel on both sides, as well as a local civilian, Fort Fisher was the first American novel to focus on the role of the Union Navy and the life of a Union Sailor.
In an interview, when asked to name two fiction writers, one past, one present, who have influenced his writing, Ahlgren named Daphne duMaurier and Tim Green.
In a pretentious law school alumni questionnaire, when asked to list his greatest achievement since graduation, he reportedly scribbled, "never, ever having voted Republican." [Reveals his anti-moral, stoical prejudice; WHO does he prosecute for criminality?]
Recreationally, Ahlgren has been a licensed private pilot, an avid sailor, and a not-so-avid skier. To the pilot in the cockpit of that American Airlines 727 trying to land at Albany directly behind him on a beautiful summer afternoon in 1976, he wants you to know that your eyes did not deceive you.
If you enjoyed his books you are invited to share your thoughts at any Internet review website, including Amazon's. If you did not, he wants you to know that the 1st Amendment, in certain circumstances, does protect prevarication and under the 5th, you don't have to say anything.
hose seeking more information about Greg Ahlgren's writing are invited to visit his website at www.GregAhlgren.com. Greg Ahlgren can be contacted at Greg@GregAhlgren.com. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This is Google's cache of http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/.
It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 6, 2023 23:13:25 GMT.
The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more.
Full version Text-only version View source
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Richard Hauptmann was murdered by "justice" 84 years ago on April 3, 1936. None of us are safe from this kind of "justice" as long as the death penalty exists. [NO. Don't throw moral stoical justice out with the corrupt USG bath water]
The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax [ACLU Execution Watch Counter]
Directory Books Search Home Forum CD ROMs Sources
Uploaded 2022 Debates from the Original (1999) LKH Public Forum
Uploaded 2022 Dudley Shoenfeld's Complete The Crime and the Criminal 400 pp. (1936)
Watch Videos Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax YOU TUBE CHANNEL
FBI Files of Russian Spy John Jacob Nosovitsky
Well Kept Lindbergh Family Secret - Great Grandfather's Manslaughter Trial - 1862 Scott Berg missed this one too!
Sue Campbell's Page Edmund Delong Columbia University Oral History 1962
Duane Baker Investigation Report
DARK CORNERS Of The Lindbergh Kidnapping by MICHAEL MELSKY
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
This website is committed to the ongoing investigation of a very old crime. The information contained here amounts to several hundred pages of collected data. It is combined with a good mix of opinions by a variety of skeptical individuals who continue to study and debate this intriguing case. Links to other websites on any of these pages do not necessarily reflect endorsement of the theory that Bruno Richard Hauptmann was innocent or that Charles Lindbergh was guilty. My original intention in publishing this site was to scrutinize and test Ahlgren and Monier's shocking, but rational, theories which were published by Branden Books in 1993. After 6x years, and the encouragement of so many dedicated people on the LKH Public Forum, this site has grown into a gigantic depository of archival material that is found nowhere else online - and it is still "unfinished."
Most people discover this site while searching for historical information but, unfortunately, "history" is often misinterpreted. There are thousands of factual answers to a multitude of questions within these pages. The real challenge, however, is finding the courage to ask the right questions. Good luck! - Ronelle Delmont
History Is Cheap
Ever since the publication of Anthony Scaduto's Scapegoat in 1976 there has been more than enough evidence to warrant an official re-investigation of that tainted event known as the "Trial of The Century." Yet, the case remains closed in spite of a mountain of evidence that clearly shows how an innocent man was framed, in 1935, by desperate New Jersey cops and a politically ruthless prosecutor.
For more than 60x years Anna Hauptmann fought for exoneration of her husband. In the mid 1980s, based partly upon Scaduto's newly disclosed evidence, she made what would become her final appeal, to N.J. Gov. James Florio. His useless advice to the courageous and broken hearted widow was that "history" would have to be the judge of whether her husband was framed by Attorney General David Wilentz and the New Jersey State Police.
History?! What a cheap excuse. There really is nothing cheaper than "history" when it comes to answering for a frame-up. No one pays and no one apologizes. Smart politics.
The True Crime
The true Crime of the Century was not a kidnap/murder but rather; the execution of an innocent man - the murder of Richard Hauptmann.
Since it is never possible to reverse such unjust punishments, many of us would argue that the death penalty be abolished. [NO, your real motive is to bash moral stoical standards in favor of nihilist criminality] If, almost 7 decades later, we find ourselves questioning the validity of a death sentence how can we ever be certain that our Capital Punishment Laws are not simply feel-good, legalized murder laws? [EDITOR: death penalties for murder are JUST; the ability of the pedo-Illuminati directed John Adams adversarial system's ability to determine WHAT HAPPENED--let alone guilt or innocence is unreliable].
"But, a jury found him guilty according to the laws of his day. We must agree with the ruling of the Flemington Court - if they said he was guilty, he must have been guilty."
According to this "logic" we have no right to ever question the verdicts of Grand Inquisitors, Jim Crow juries, or Stalinist show trials.
Life sentences, rather than irreversible death penalties, would, at the very least, assure any future innocent defendants - (the rest of us!) - that no one in the United States would ever again be murdered by "justice."
Richard Hauptmann was put to death only 19x months after his arrest. Compared with today's more cautious judicial timescales his defense took no more than the blink of an eye.
Listen to Richard Hauptmann's Statement of Innocence
Why Did You Kill Me? by Richard Hauptmann
Death In Texas by Sister Helen Prejean
The Tragedy
On May 20, 1927, Charles Augustus Lindbergh became a world hero. He was the first aviator to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in a solo flight.
After 33 hours The Spirit of St. Louis touched down in Paris and the handsome, 25-year-old pilot became a living god. His life, only 5x years later, would become known as a public tragedy when, on a Tuesday evening, March 1, 1932, his 23x-month-old son, Charles, Jr., disappeared from his crib.
After receipt of numerous ransom notes the sum of $50,000 in cash was handed over to a man in a Bronx cemetery known only as "John". On May 12, 1932 the child's decomposed body, lying in a shallow grave only 2x miles (walking distance) from his home, was found by a truck driver. The baby had been dead since the night of his disappearance. Lindbergh, in command of the entire investigation from its inception, ordered an immediate cremation. [Guilty demeanor] No legitimate autopsy was ever performed. There is no corpse to exhume for forensic testing.
Lindbergh scattered the ashes of his firstborn child out of an airplane in August 1932 and a long line of "real Lindbergh babies" have staked their claim for a share in the Lindbergh fortune ever since.
The Trial
2x and one half years later, on September 19, 1934, a suspect, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, was arrested. He had been traced through a gasoline purchase he made in upper Manhattan in which he used a gold certificate that had been part of the Lindbergh ransom cache. Hauptmann was extradited from the Bronx and tried for murder in Flemington N.J. in 1935 upon what almost every researcher has admitted was questionable evidence. His explanation - labeled the "Fisch Story" by prosecutors - has never, to this day, been proven to be false.
Hauptmann was found guilty in Feb 1935 and sent, in spite of the selfless efforts of N.J.'s (Rep) Governor, Harold G. Hoffman, to the electric chair on April 3, 1936. He was convicted and put to death as the lone kidnapper and lone murderer.
So, why did Prosecutor David Wilentz, under pressure from Governor Hoffman and others, offer him a last minute deal to commute his death sentence to life in prison - in exchange for the names of his accomplices?!
Hauptmann never wavered from his original claim that he was completely innocent. He chose to die rather than lie. Offered $90,000.00 for his public "confession" by a Hearst newspaper Hauptmann spurned all monetary offers and swore he had nothing to do with the crime.
Outrageously unfair news coverage presented what appeared to be a public outcry for the electric chair - but there were many who were not so sure.
The Hallam Report
Some of the more famous skeptics of the day were Clarence Darrow and Eleanor Roosevelt. The famous aviatrix who resembled Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, wrote an eloquent plea to the N.J. Governor. Very few people, however, were able to think rationally amidst the rampant hostility, caused by grossly distorted news coverage. Xenophobic sentiment played a major role in the Flemington Courthouse Circus.
Hauptmann's defense attorney, Ed "Death House" Reilly, was literally bought and paid for by a Hearst newspaper, in exchange for that lawyer's privileged inside "scoop." Reilly spent no more than 40 minutes with his client over the course of the entire trial.
Hauptmann, an immigrant, never had access to a translator during the entire two- month trial yet the State of N.J. "bugged" every conversation he had with his lawyer or wife.
No Discovery
After 69x years this case will not die. Frightening discrepancies point to a prosecutorial frame-up. No one could ever say that Hauptmann's trial was fair. Even those who believe he was guilty agree it was an unfair trial. Exculpatory evidence, available at the time of the trial, was suppressed. The Defense was not advised of such evidence nor were they allowed to handle or view the supposedly incriminating evidence.
Without the vital safeguards of our modern legal system's "discovery" requirements - set in place to [partially] protect the integrity of American trials - this Trial of the Century turned out to be the Lynching of the Century.
The Truth?
The public, and especially the Hauptmann family, deserves to know the truth. If Hauptmann was innocent then the question still remains - who did kill the Lindbergh child? Doubts about Hauptmann's guilt have caused a variety of interesting theories to arise over the years. The most common, of course, is the "Gang Theory"
There is also a popular theory, originated and explained by the late Noel Behn in his book Lindbergh:The Crime - that Lindbergh's' sister-in-law, Elizabeth Morrow, killed her nephew in a jealous rage over having been spurned by the handsome and famous aviator.
Wayne D. Jones, another tireless researcher, claimed, in his book Murder of Justice: New Jersey's Greatest Shame, that the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped with the help of the family butler, Oliver Whately.
"They think when I die, the case will die. They think it will be like a book I close. But the book, it will never close." - Bruno Richard Hauptmann
The bitter truth of the doomed man's words will always remind us of the blight upon the American [IN] justice system that Flemington's legacy still represents.
This website challenges, not only the tainted evidence of Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf's N.J. Police Dept. but the twisted propaganda published by NJ Police-authorized writer, Jim Fisher. His books, Lindbergh: The Case and The Ghosts of Hopewell have been touted as "objective" but only by people who do not know or understand this case.
Fisher, a rigid defender of the Flemington trial, its verdict, its Judge, and its Prosecutor, has attempted to "set the record straight." But, all he has really accomplished, in our view, is the perpetuation of a very old hate crime.
Perhaps some day there will be a N.J. Governor brave enough to posthumously exonerate Bruno Richard Hauptmann. (Sacco and Vanzetti cost Michael Dukakis dearly when the Mass. Governor exonerated them several years ago.)
But, let's never forget that Anna Hauptmann died, on October 10, 1994, waiting for history. [Was she aware of the new plausible theory that sicko prankster CAL accidentally murdered his own baby?]
DNA and The Ladder
Contrary to public knowledge of this case there has never been an iota of hard evidence linking Hauptmann to Hopewell, NJ on the night of March 1, 1932
- except for a ladder.
It was found on the muddy ground Tuesday evening March 1, 1932 approximately 50 yards from the baby's window. After having extradited Hauptmann from the Bronx, (where the only charge against him was extortion), N.J. Attorney General, David Wilentz, desperate for any hard evidence against Hauptmann, would later claim that a single rail (Rail 16) had actually been a piece of floorboard in Hauptmann's attic. This obviously fabricated evidence was used by N.J. Police to criminally place Hauptmann in N.J. on March 1, 1932.
Forensic testing of the "kidnap ladder" and the attic floorboard - both on public display at the West Trenton State Archives & Police Museum - is necessary to exonerate Hauptmann. Authorization for DNA testing, however, needs to come either from N.J.'s Attorney General or, from New Jersey Superintendent of Police.
If the floorboard's DNA does not match the ladder rail the pieces cannot possibly be from the same tree. If they are not part of the same tree it would be conclusive evidence of an arranged frame-up by Lt. Louis Bornmann, the "discoverer" of the "evidence" and Prosecutor David Wilentz. [FRAUD vitiates Evereything (FVE)]
Lt. Bornmann moved into Hauptmann's Bronx home and "found" this "evidence" by himself, without witnesses, after 37x FBI and NYC cops had already scoured Hauptmann's attic 19 times!
DNA and The Envelopes
There are also several envelopes in the N.J. State Archive that may hold the key to the mysteries surrounding this case.
Click here to read about the struggle over DNA testing
Monier and Ahlgren
The most rational [Occam's Razor simple] explanation for what took place on March 1, 1932 has come from Stephen Monier and Gregory Ahlgren, co-authors of :
PIC:
CRIME OF THE CENTURY: THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING HOAX (Branden Books)
In 1993, Stephen Monier, a Goffstown, NH Police Chief and Gregory Ahlgren, a Manchester, NH defense attorney, presented their shocking, but plausible, research pointing responsibility for the child's death, not to any stranger nor to any sort of a gang - but to the baby's father himself.
By re-investigating this case as if it happened today, rather than the hero-worshipping world of the 1930s, Ahlgren and Monier have given spellbound readers a new understanding of how easy it was for an idolized celebrity [like the pedophile murdering Clintons] to take charge of the most sensational investigation the country had ever known.
Charles Lindbergh commandeered the entire kidnap investigation from the moment it began. All law enforcement officers - including N.J. Police Chief H Norman Schwarzkopf (Senior) - took orders from Charles Lindbergh, the missing baby's father! [How? Because he was a FREE MASON and the cops were, too!]
No Kidnapping?
The Crime of the Century, as an authentic kidnapping, has now been debunked by Ahlgren and Monier. Their book offers so many logical reasons why there may never have been a kidnapping at all.
And so, Charles Lindbergh, Mason, Eugenicist, social misfit and sadistic prankster, emerges as the most likely suspect.
He may have negligently killed his son during a botched kidnap prank (his pranks were usually quite cruel) or during rough "play" with his toddler. Lindbergh's belief in Eugenics (White Supremacy) also makes him suspect since it is possible his firstborn son was severely harmed during a 14-hour flight he forced his wife to undergo while in her 7th month of pregnancy. If there was anything "wrong" with the Eaglet Lindbergh might even have wanted to be relieved of the "stigma" to his name and reputation.
Forensic specimens of bone and hair of the unfortunate child were removed from the N.J. State Archive by the Lindbergh family after the shocking disclosure that Charles Lindbergh had sired 7 children with 3 German women in the 1950s.
But, in either case - accidental or purposeful - the "kidnap of the century" appears to have been a hoax, a la Susan Smith or JonBenet Ramsey.
A devious ploy to account for a missing child.
The Trial
Adoring jurors at Flemington in 1935 were not suspicious of Lindbergh's outrageously false ear-witness testimony.
At the Flemington trial, Lindbergh was unable to remember where he had been during the day of his son's disappearance--yet he claimed to remember Hauptmann's voice, shouting from afar only two short words - 3 years earlier!
His original testimony, at the time of the cemetery drop-off, revealed that he had been sitting in a car with the windows rolled up - more than half a block away.
Lindbergh's testimony at Hauptmann's trial is disturbing. Not only were the jurors dazzled by the famous aviator's presence--but none of them thought to question Lindbergh's ability to identify a person in this manner. They must have assumed that the daredevil who flew to Paris also possessed supernatural hearing.
It is simply not possible for human hearing to be that keen nor is it possible for human memory to be that reliable. Based upon such horrendous standards Hauptmann's execution was really the murder of justice itself.
And so, if Ahlgren and Monier are correct, Charles Lindbergh, as well as the State of New Jersey, deserve inexcusable blame for the framing of an innocent man.
Anti-Semitism? Was Charles Lindbergh really an anti-Semite?
Could that question have anything to do with this case?
In spite of recent reappraisals by family-authorized writer Scott Berg, youngest daughter Reeve Lindbergh and the most unlikely of all apologists; Steven Spielberg, many people still believe Charles Lindbergh was nothing less than an unrepentant pro-Nazi, anti-Semite.
This belief is not necessarily based upon what Charles Lindbergh said in his public speeches before the Jewish Holocaust-- but for all the things he never said after it was over.
Some "gifts" do need to be given back. Hitler's medal, - the Service Cross of the German Eagle With Star - adorned with four swastikas, was presented to Lindbergh by Hermann Goering, though many people begged him to give it back--Lindbergh stubbornly refused saying it would be an insult to Germany. It has been, for over 60x years, part of the Lindbergh Collection at the St. Louis Missouri Historical Society were Lindbergh donated this highly offensive possession which he continually, even after the war, refused to denounce. It has been viewed by thousands of people as part of a touring Lindbergh memorabilia exhibit throughout the country. Much worldwide respect would have come Lindbergh's way had he publicly retracted some of his "values" before he died in 1974. Lindbergh found no fault, no mistake, no regret nor any corrections necessary in his own behavior or values. He believed he was a perfect individual - everyone else was wrong. At the time of his death, he continued to maintain a belief that the U.S. should not have fought Hitler. [THIS is why the medal should be kept as a REMINDER that CAL was pro-Nazi, WOKETARDS!]
Ahlgren and Monier have provided an intriguing psychological theory to account for Lindbergh's pre-war attitude in relation to his participation at Hauptmann's trial.
Tania M. Gensemer
The idea for this website was originally a school project created by a high school student who was not afraid to think skeptically. Tania M. Gensemer was outraged by the injustices depicted in a 1996 HBO movie, which is based on Sir Ludovic Kennedy's book The Airman and The Carpenter. Her interest in this case led to an attempt to find the truth, without prejudice. After creating some of these pages, at age 16, she was very quickly threatened by the editor of a New Jersey newspaper claiming to have copyrights to some of the photos she originally used here. That newspaper is a diehard political supporter of David Wilentz - the man who ruthlessly prosecuted the unfortunate defendant.
The intimidation of a high school student (though she actually listed all of her sources) is one of the reasons this website now exists. Although some people may be disturbed by some of the theories on this site, they deserve to be tested in "the light of day." Ronelle Delmont has revised and rewritten all of Tania's original 45 pages and will continue expanding this website in her honor. Tania's high school project was, in 1998, the only website questioning the right of the State of New Jersey to kill a man under enormously spurious conditions.
Ronelle Delmont
A popular lecturer and book reviewer in South Florida. She has been enlightening audiences about Crime of the Century:The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax as well as hundreds of other books for almost twenty years.
The L.K.H. Skeptics
Much valuable information on this website was contributed to the attached message board - The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Public Forum - by a host of very dedicated skeptics - and non-skeptics. Their participation in this ongoing debate has lasted for six years - and shows no sign of waning. Thanks to Siglinde Rach, Kurt Tolksdorf, Sue Campbell, Sam Bornstein, Steve Romeo, Michael Melsky, Philip Migliore, Richard Sloan, Tanialee, Bob Aldinger, Harold Olson, et al. Many of their LKH message board contributions will be scattered throughout these pages.
Mark Falzini
Special thanks to Mark Falzini, Retired Archivist at the West Trenton, N.J. State Police Museum, who manages to remain objective in spite of the demands made upon him by researchers, theorists, and "real" Lindbergh "babies" - some of whom have been embattled for decades.
Please visit :
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube Channel
ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
Directory Books Search Home Forum CD ROMs For Sale Sources
© Copyright Lindbergh
Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2021
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wallace.html
The Lindbergh Kidnapping
Hoax
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 78
THE KIDNAPPING OF THE LINDBERGH BABY
by Carol Wilkie Wallace
Directory Books Search Home Transcript Sources [ACLU Execution Watch
Counter]
New! Since April 2020 - YOU TUBE LKH Channel
The State of N.J. v. Bruno Richard Hauptmann: FAIRNESS ON TRIAL
by Judge W Dennis Duggan, JFC
Freedom of Information Act - 1368 pages of Lindbergh Files
The following article first appeared in CN's previous incarnation, "Conspiracy for the Day", on January 14, 1994. Note that Carol Wallace's e-mail address (below) may or may not still be current.
===================================
Today's "Conspiracy for the Day" (CfD) was written especially for the readers of CfD by Carol Wallace. The subject today deals with the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby back in the 1930s. Carol Wallace is an expert on the subject, having written her master's thesis on the Lindbergh kidnapping as well as being widely read in the history of that era. Wallace wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Fatty Arbuckle scandal of 1921. She teaches Mass Media Law, with a special interest in notorious trials and publicity. Regarding the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, she says, "I love this topic, and am glad to discuss it anywhere."
She can be reached at Wallacec1@jaguar.uofs.edu
The Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby
by Carol Wallace
Copyright (c) 1994 by Carol Wallace
All Rights Reserved
EXCLUSIVE to "Conspiracy
for the Day"
"...comparisons between Lindbergh and Hauptmann --that the two men were very similar in an unbelievable number of ways, physically, through life and family history, etc. ...it was as
though Hauptmann was the
dark side of Lindbergh. But, if the latest theories have any validity at all,
it seems as though Lindbergh was the real dark side."
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
On March 1, 1932, Ollie Whateley, butler at the Charles Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey, called the local police to report that the Lindbergh's infant son had been stolen. Within hours, local and state police, plus press and ordinary sensation seekers were all over the grounds. While local police saw a crude ladder, built in sections, lying near the window from which it appeared the baby had been taken, and two grooves where the ladder had rested, most other footprints and possible clues were obliterated in the rush to investigate the rain-soaked grounds.
Lindbergh, hailed as the great American hero after his historic New York to Paris flight in 1927, took charge of the investigation himself. He refused to allow other members of the
household to be questioned. According to him, the
child was discovered missing when his nursemaid, Betty Gow, went in to check on
him and found the crib empty. She reported this first to Anne Morrow Lindbergh,
the child's mother, then they went to Colonel Lindbergh's room.
"Do you have the baby?" asked Anne. Lindbergh denied having the child, and accompanied his wife to the nursery.
The crib was empty. Lindbergh turned to his wife. "Anne," he said. "They have stolen our baby."
Instructing his wife and Betty Gow to remain where they were, Lindbergh shouted to the butler to phone the police, grabbed a rifle, and raced outdoors. When the butler came to report, he found Lindbergh sitting in his car. Lindbergh asked the butler to drive into town and buy a flashlight, [Mr. always prepared?] so that he could investigate. But before Whateley could do so, the police arrived.
Lindbergh led them straight to the window under the child's room, pointed out the discarded ladder, and led them to the prints which the ladder had left, and a footprint. According to police reports, he was very calm and collected. [Guilty demeanor].
He then led the police upstairs to the nursery, where he pointed to an envelope resting against the window. He told police that he had ordered that it not be touched until a fingerprint expert could be summoned.
The envelope was opened in the presence of the police. Anonymous, it bore an elaborate coded symbol as a signature, and claimed that the writer and associates were holding the child for ransom and would communicate the particulars later. The letter appeared to have been written by someone foreign, probably Germanic.
The fingerprint expert found no prints on the envelope or letter. Nor did he find any on the window, or the child's crib. He didn't even find Lindbergh's prints, or those of the nursemaid or Anne Lindbergh, who had searched the room before police arrival (incidentally, failing to notice the ransom note .) [Guilty demeanor! NO prints at all? This means the area was WIPED--by CAL! A kidnapper would only need to insure he LEFT no fingerprints]
Over the next several months, Lindbergh continued to spearhead a most unusual investigation. He rejected the FBI's offer of assistance, but called in Morris Rosner, a member of the underworld. Claiming that he was convinced that the kidnapping was the work of organized crime leaders, he asked Rosner to circulate the ransom note and see if he could get any information from his underworld connections. [Get them involved to implicate them]
Soon after, Lindbergh received a call from Dr. John F. Condon of the Bronx. Condon had placed an ad in the Bronx Home News offering to add his $1000 life savings to the ransom money if the child would be safely returned. Condon told Lindbergh that he had received a note from the kidnappers, appointing him the go-between for the ransom negotiations. Lindbergh accepted this, and it was Condon, operating under the code name of Jafsie, who went to the cemetery where the transfer of money was supposed to take place. Condon, on his second visit, turned a wooden box containing $50,000 in gold certificates to a man whom he called "Cemetery John."
John, he claimed, was of medium build, with a pointy face, high cheekbones, slanted, dark, almost "oriental eyes", and a cough. His accent sounded either German or Slavic, although Jafsie claimed that he attempted some German, but "John" did not appear to understand.
Although the money was delivered as instructed, the child was not returned. Instead, Jafsie was given a letter which gave directions to the childs supposed location on "boad Nellie" (the allegedly Germanic spelling of "boat.") A determined sweep of the area where boad Nellie was supposed to be found nothing.
The search for the child ended on May 12, 1932, when a truck driver, stopping to relieve himself in the woods about two miles from the Lindbergh home, found the decomposed body of an infant partially buried in a pile of leaves. The child's sexual organs had been eaten away, but there was evidence of a skull fracture, as though the child had been dropped from a ladder. Although the Lindbergh family physician could not make a positive identification, Lindbergh, after a 90x-second inspection where he counted the corpse's teeth, identified the body as that of his son. The kidnapping had now officially become a murder.
The search for the criminal continued for 2x years. Then a German-born carpenter named Bruno Richard Hauptmann , with high cheekbones and a pointy face, but fair and blue-eyed, was caught passing one of the bills from the ransom money. Hauptmann was arrested and charged with the kidnapping.
In what has since been termed the Trial of the Century, Hauptmann was convicted, and sentenced to the electric chair, where he died proclaiming his complete innocence.
The fact that $18,000 of the ransom money was found in Hauptmann's garage acted strongly against him. Hauptmann claimed that he found the money in a package left with him by his business partner, Isador Fisch, before Fisch left on a trip to Germany. [He realized the $$$ was dirty and traceable] Fisch died there, of tuberculosis. While cleaning a leaking closet, Hauptmann rediscovered the box, and discovered that it was full of water-logged bills. He claimed that he took these to his garage and began to dry them, hiding each bundle as it dried. Fisch, he said, owed him $7,000, so he felt entitled to keep and use that portion of the money in the box. Police and reporters labeled this "the Fisch story." [Fishy story hahaha!]
Many legal experts and researchers believed Hauptmann, [WHY? State your reasons! I think that Fisch knew the money was traceable] but could not save him from the electric chair. There were too many holes in the case, too many unanswered questions. But in the 60x years
since then, 4x major
theories have emerged about what really happened in Hopewell New Jersey that
day in 1931.
The 1st is that Hauptmann was guilty. A variation of that was that he was guilty, but had not acted alone.
The last 2x theories are more startling.
In 1993, 2x books came out claiming that there never had been a kidnapping; that
Lindbergh and his family
were actually covering up a killing.
The premise that the kidnap was a cover-up appears to answer many of the questions that the arrest and execution of Hauptmann raised. Much of the evidence against Hauptmann was
unsatisfactory; much of it
was plainly manufactured. [FVE] And much of Lindbergh's conduct during
the trial is, in hindsight, very peculiar. {Guilty demeanor] A quick review of
the basic questions answered and left open, will demonstrate this.
HAUPTMANN
Hauptmann was convicted basically on 7x points of evidence.
1. He had $15,000 of the ransom money, and explained it away with the "Fisch story." Since Fisch was conveniently dead, there didn't appear to be any way to confirm this.
However: $30,000 of the ransom money remains undiscovered to this day. And almost $3,000 in gold certificates were turned into the bank when the county went off the gold standard by one J.J. Faulkner. Faulkner was the known pseudonym of a convicted master forger, Jacob Novitsky (a man with a pointed face, dark complexion and dark, almost oriental eyes) who bragged to his cellmates of his involvement in the extortion of the ransom. Just before Hauptmann's execution, Faulkner wrote to New Jersey's Governor Hoffman claiming that they had arrested the wrong man.
2. Police found, at the site of the crime, a 3/4" chisel. When they examined the toolbox of Hauptmann, a carpenter, they claimed that he had no 3/4" chisel, but that this would be standard equipment for any competent worker. 40x years later, crime reporter Anthony Scaduto checked the archives of the New York police, and found not only the chisel found at the scene of the crime, but two more, wrapped in a brown bag labeled "Found in Hauptmann's garage."
3. 2x witnesses came forward to say that they had seen Hauptmann in the Hopewell area the day of the crime. A foreman from the Majestic Corp., for which Hauptmann claimed he was
employed on that day,
brought forth a time card purporting to show that he had not been at work.
If Hauptmann was working, he would not have had time to get to Hopewell within
the correct time framework to commit the crime.
a. One of the witnesses who placed Hauptmann at the scene was legally blind. In the prosecutor's office, he identified a vase of flowers as a woman's hat. Yet he claimed to be able to recognize the face of a man going by in a car. The second was a known pathological liar who denied categorically that he had seen anything unusual until the offer of a [$$$] reward was announced.
b. Police had these witnesses pick Hauptmann from a line-up. The line-up consisted of the blond, slight Hauptmann, a burly and very Irish detective, and a policeman still in uniform.
Hauptmann was the only one
who even resembled the description of "Cemetery John" given by
Jafsie. [FVE]
c. On the time card which allegedly showed that Hauptmann had not worked that day, all other workers who were absent were marked with a line of zeros. Hauptmann's line was marked with blots, suggesting that something beneath had been blotted out.
4. Dr. John F. Condon identified Hauptmann in court as the man with whom he negotiated the ransom.
Until his appearance in the courtroom, Condon refused to identify him; at one point, on record, he said that it was definitely not "Cemetery John."
5. In court, the prosecution produced a board from Hauptmann's closet which had scribbled on it Jafsie's phone number. Hauptmann couldn't recall writing it there, but conceded that since it was in his closet, maybe he did, because he had been interested in following the case.
A reporter for the New York Daily News later bragged to fellow reporters that he had written the number there himself, on a day when there was no fresh news in the case and his editors were on his back for front page material. [FVE--why wasn't he arrested for hoaxing?]
For those who doubt this, consider two things. Hauptmann had no phone. If he was using a pay phone to contact Jafsie, he probably would use something more portable than a closet board to record the number on. Also, to see the number, one had to remove both shelves in the closet and stand in the back using a flashlight. Hardly convenient for quick and unobtrusive reference.
6. Police claimed to have found a missing board in Hauptmann's attic which matched the wood in the kidnap ladder. This "missing" board was discovered after several previous searches. And when the board in question was matched against the piece it was allegedly cut away from, it proved to be thicker than the board still in the attic floor. This caused New Jersey's Governor, Harold Hoffman, to make an open accusation that the evidence had been falsified. [FVE. Moreover, did anyone ask Hauptmann how HE WOULD HAVE EXPERTLY MADE A WOODEN LADDER?]
7. The piece of evidence that apparently carried most weight with the jury was Lindbergh's identification of Hauptmann's voice as the same one he heard in the cemetery . This was a voice that Lindbergh heard, only once, 2x years earlier, from a distance of several hundred feet, shouting only 5-6 syllables -- either "hey, Doc! Over hear" or "hey Doctor, over here." Most experts expressed great doubt about the validity of this identification, but the jury was impressed.
Another point in Hauptmann's favor was the ladder itself. It was very crude, causing most people who knew woodworking to believe that no carpenter had ever made it. [Did anyone ask Hauptmann how HE WOULD HAVE EXPERTLY MADE A WOODEN LADDER?]
Consider, too. William Randolph Hearst, who instructed his reporters to cover the trial in a manner that would light a flame of indignation in people everywhere, then paid for Hauptmann's defense lawyer, Edward J. Reilly. Reilly was suffering from syphilis which caused his institutionalization several months later, he routinely had several martinis at lunch during trial, and spent less than 40 minutes in consultation with his client. He was paid up front, regardless of the outcome of the trial.
THE "GANG"
There is clear evidence that more than one person was involved in the collection of the ransom. In the files of the Bronx police dept., Anthony Scaduto found an FBI document giving Lindbergh's description of a dark, swarthy man with a rolling gait who acted as lookout for "Cemetery John".
This was never brought out at trial. Kidnap notes always referred to plural collectors, which may or may not have been a rhetorical device to mislead investigators. However, when
Lindbergh called Morris
Rosner in to help the investigation, Rosner showed copies of the original
note to many members of the underworld. Contemporary handwriting experts
appear to concur that the first ransom note was written by a different person
than those that followed. (There were people willing to testify to that effect
during Hauptmann's trial, but they were not permitted to testify, since that
would have ruined the "lone killer" scenario.)
Jafsie relates that, during one phone conversation with the Scandinavian (both Condon and the cabdriver who delivered the ransom-collector's note to Condon originally stated that the man was Scandinavian, not German) he heard another voice in the background shouting "Statto cito" [shut up, in Italian.]
Given the peculiar construction of the kidnap ladder, it would have been impossible for a single person to descend the ladder with the child. First, it would not hold more than 160 pounds without breaking, according to police tests. The child would add an extra 30 pounds. Second, the rungs were so awkwardly spaced that it would take all but an extremely tall person two hands to descend. [CAL was tall! 6 foot 3 inches! If he was such a cheap skate not to have a flashlight he certainly manufactured ladder!]
If Hauptmann (or Fisch) acted alone, where is the rest of the ransom money? And how did Jacob Novitsky, alias J.J. Faulkner, get at least $3,000 of that money?
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
The latest theories claim that there was no kidnapping at all; that the kidnap story was devised as a way to cover-up the guilt of a member of the Lindbergh family. In this theory, the ransom collection was separate from the death of the child; it was an attempt by underworld figures to cash in on the Lindbergh's when they were in a vulnerable position.
Many researchers have questioned Lindbergh's behavior throughout the investigation. Burdened by their belief in the original premise -- that there was a kidnapper at large who must be treated carefully so that he wouldn't harm the child-- they explained this behavior as both fear of criminal reprisal and an attempt to protect his wife. Scaduto seemed to question this protective instinct, despite his apparent acceptance of a kidnapping theory. Lindbergh was not the tender, protecting type.
He was given to cruel practical jokes, and was essentially a rather cold person. The cover-up theory, however, explains Lindbergh's behavior, and a few other questions unanswered by the arrest and conviction of Hauptmann.
1. Why would a kidnapper choose to steal the child during hours when household members were still awake and obviously moving around the house?
2. How did the kidnapper get down the ladder carrying a 30x-pound child? At the time of their original investigation, police insisted that the criminals must have exited through the house,and initially suspected a member of the household.
3. Why were there NO fingerprints at all in the child's room? Anne Lindbergh and Betty Gow both admited to searching the room when they first discovered that the child was missing, but when police arrived on the scene, their fingerprints were missing, too..
4. Why did the two women not see the ransom note during their search of the room, so that Lindbergh was able to spot it when he re-entered? And why was it left on the windowsill, when the criminal was already burdened with the child, instead of in the crib, which would have been the logical place to put it? And, on discovering that his child was missing, how could any loving father have ordered that the note be left untouched, and leave it so for two full hours until a fingerprint expert arrived to open and read the note? [Because he wrote and placed the note/envelope on the window sill--planted false evidence like was done on 9/11]
5. Why did the family dog, Whagoosh, prone to barking at the slightest disturbance, not bark on the night of the crime? And why, when the entire staff and Anne Lindbergh testified that the dog always barked at disturbances and at strangers approaching the house, did Lindbergh deny this?
6. Why did Lindbergh refuse the offer of help from the FBI, and consistently refuse to allow police to carry out routine investigative procedures, then call in members of the underworld to help the investigation? [Free Masonic crime & cover-up]
7. Why, after Lindbergh observed Hauptmann shouting "Hey, Doctor" did he wait 10x days before deciding that Hauptmann's was the voice he had heard in the cemetery?
8. Why did Lindbergh refuse to allow police to question his wife or household staff following his report that the child had been stolen? [Guilty demeanor]
9. How, if he had no flashlight, did Lindbergh manage to lead the police straight to the marks left by the ladder in the ground beneath the nursery window?
10. How would an outside criminal know that the Lindberghs were at the Hopewell house that Tuesday, when they had never before stayed longer than Saturday through Monday?
11. How did the alleged kidnappers know exactly which window were the child's, and of those, which one was warped so that it wouldn't latch? This fact could not be determined by routine surveillance.
These questions made many people suspicious, even at the time of the investigation. If Lindbergh had not been the superhero of his times, they would not have been brushed aside so easily; today it is almost certain that he or a family member would have led the list of suspects. But, in 1931, Lindbergh symbolized all that Americans most claimed to value, so any thought of possible conspiracy was dismissed as unthinkable.
However, there are 2x theories that appear to answer the above questions.
The first, presented in Noel Behn's Lindbergh: The Crime, is that the child was murdered by Anne's sister, Elizabeth Morrow. Charles Lindbergh originally courted Elizabeth, and the press
reported rumors of an
engagement. However, Elizabeth flew to the aid of an ailing brother, and when
Lindbergh paid a return visit to the Morrow home, only Anne was there. They
began to court, and married. Elizabeth had a mild heart attack following this
news, and there is some evidence of a nervous breakdown.
After the birth of Charles Lindbergh, Jr., several disturbing incidents led his parents to give strict orders that the child was never to be left alone with Elizabeth. Household servants
all filed affidavits that Elizabeth
Morrow killed the family dog, and once threw young Charlie out along with the
household garbage.
According to Behn's theory, the staff DID leave Elizabeth alone with Charlie. And, to avoid further disgrace, further hounding of the family by the press, the family spent two days dreaming up a way to cover up the crime. The kidnap story was the result; the fact that Morris Rossner's display of the kidnap note sparked an extortion scheme played right into the plans, since it appeared to confirm that there really was a kidnap gang out there.
Elizabeth Morrow was institutionalized soon after the crime. Gossip about her possible involvement persisted, at least in low-key whispers at least through the 50s. However, to accept this theory, one must also accept that not only Lindbergh--but the entire Morrow family, and the staffs of both households were involved in the cover-up, and that they all lied on the witness stand, knowingly sending an innocent man to his death.
The second theory, on its face, is even more incredible: Lindbergh himself killed the child in the course of a practical joke. Lindbergh was known for cruel practical jokes. He often filled bunkmates beds with lizards and other reptiles; on one occasion he put a snake in the bed of a man who was terrified of them. Asked if the snake had been venomous, Lindbergh replied
"Yes, but not
fatally." He also filled a friend's canteen with kerosene and watched
him drink it; the man was hospitalized for severe internal burns. And, only two
weeks prior to the reported kidnapping, Lindbergh hid the child in a closet
then ran to his wife's room, claiming the child had been stolen. He let the
joke go on for 20 terrifying minutes before confessing.
In "Crime of the Century", Ahlgren and Monier theorize that Lindbergh tried that joke one too many times. In their scenario, Lindbergh called home to say he would be late, but actually
arrived at the usual time.
He climbed his makeshift ladder to his son's room, planning to spirit the child
out and arrive at the front door with him in hand, claiming something like
"Look who I met in New York." Unfortunately, the ladder broke,
Lindbergh slipped, and the child's head was smashed against the side of the
house. Lindbergh then hid the body, went home, failed to check on his young son
even though the child had been sick, and spent some time in his study alone
before Betty Gow reported the child's disappearance. Ahlgren and Monier
speculate that Lindbergh wrote the original ransom note during this time. Most
experts agree that the wording of the note was typical of an English speaking
person trying to sound Germanic, rather than of a real German.
To accept this theory, as amazing as it may be, is somewhat easier than to believe the charge against Elizabeth Morrow. The great American hero was above suspicion. Police would never hink to check his alibi, to see why he arrived home an hour later than usual that night. Nor did they hesitate to follow his orders throughout the investigation, although they, not Lindbergh, were the trained investigators.
An analysis of Lindbergh's
character makes this sort of practical joke a strong possibility; that he could
cover it up so successfully can be attributed both to the awe in which he was
held, and the successful diversion of the ransom note. Much of
Lindbergh's more peculiar behavior can be attributed to understandable moments
of panic. [NOT. It's Guilty demeanor]
In the late 1930s, when Lindbergh openly associated with Nazis, and made many public statements about the desirability of a Master Race here in America, there were some fitful rumors that Lindbergh had killed his own child because it was genetically defective -- retarded. [Toe wrap-over defect] As war and memory faded, these whispers died down. Baby Boomers, if they knew much about the case at all, tended to hear it from the perspective of Lindbergh, the vulnerable hero; his later politics forgotten.
There is no proof
that Lindbergh in fact killed his own child; however, the theory answers
questions left open by Hauptmann's arrest and execution. And in this theory, only
one person had to keep a dreadful secret and perjure himself. [Occam's
Razor] If true, however,
Lindbergh is guilty not only
of the death of his son, but of the cold and deliberate murder of Bruno Richard
Hauptmann.
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1")
===================================
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
Please visit :
New! since April 2020 - YOU TUBE LKH Channel
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
Directory Books Search Forum Home Transcript Sources
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2020
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/theories.html
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
Theories
Directory Books Search Home Transcript Sources [ACLU Execution Watch
Counter]
New! since April 2020 - YOU TUBE LKH Channel
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
Lindbergh Archivist Discovers NEW EVIDENCE
The State of NJ v. Bruno Richard Hauptmann: FAIRNESS ON TRIAL (PDF)
by Judge W Dennis Duggan, JFC
reprinted from The Albany County Bar Association Newsletter 01/04
Vintage Story - May 1935 Who Helped Hauptmann ? by Edward Dean Sullivan
The Police Theorize
Police Conference held at the Training School
Wed. June 1, 1932
thanks to Archivist Mark Falzini for the following Conference documentation
The following were present:
Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf,
Colonel Chas. A. Lindbergh,
Mr. Frank Wilson from
the Treasury Department,
Lieutenants R.A. Snook and A.T. Keaten, N.J. State Police;
the following suggestions were noted.
1. The whole assemblage was
convinced that one man wrote all the ransom notes.
2. It is more likely that he is a German than anything else and the whole assemblage was convinced of the strong German influence and German education. [CAL]
3. All were more or less convinced that this man has had previous experience which is borne out by the methods he used and the cool deliberation which he has demonstrated all the way through. [CAL]
4. He has some knowledge of drawing. [CAL]
5. All were convinced he has better than ordinary education. [CAL]
6. He has a vivid imagination. [CAL]
7. He shows a lot of ingenuity. [CAL]
8. He has a good knowledge of criminal methods; referring particularly to the reference to the serial numbers; other knowledge of the psychology of Colonel Lindbergh and other people, in saying not to notify the police and in saying, "you have notified the police", etc. and in selecting a man like Condon. [CAL]
9. An excellent ability to construct letters as brought out in Osborn's report. The construction of those letters, to get his ideas across is extraordinary. He can say a lot in a few words. [CAL]
10. Evidence of higher education by conveying information by asking questions. [CAL]
11. It is not thought he built a ladder like the one used before because of what occurred. It is quite evident that he did not test the ladder before using it as evidenced by the breaking of the ladder. [CAL was in a hurry!]
12. Criminal experience is shown by continued negotiations in spite of the heat. [CAL]
13. There is no question but what he has a great deal of nerve and courage. [CAL]
14. From his description of places and instructions as to the meeting places, he evidently has a thorough and intimate knowledge of the Bronx. [CAL]
15. Another confirmation of his mental faculties is the reference to Horse Neck Beach ,which is not a nautical method of giving directions, but would indicate rather, his reference to a map. [CAL]
16. He did not display a particular definite knowledge of Hopewell and vicinity. [CAL]
17. The body was found at the first reasonable place where it could be disposed of and where he could park off the side of the road after leaving the Lindbergh Estate. [CAL]
18. The use of the newspaper as a means of communicating with him again indicates experience. [CAL]
19. Ingenuity was displayed on the third letter by addressing it to Colonel Breckinridge and putting a return address on it of Colonel Lindbergh, Hopewell, N.J. [CAL]
20. It was the consensus of opinion of the group to hold up the original note and to publish in some expeditious manner the signature.
21. He showed calmness and foresightedness in taking the sleeping suit off the dead child for use later as a means of identification, knowing that he could not produce proof of the living existence of the child. [CAL]
Lone Killer Theories
Is it possible for Hauptmann to have committed such a complicated act alone?
How could Hauptmann have possibly known the sudden change in the Lindbergh's plans to remain at Hopewell? The family never stayed there on a Monday or a Tuesday night and only changed plans the very morning of the child's disappearance.
How could BRH know the shutter on the nursery window was warped? It was the only warped shutter in the entire house and could not close from the inside, something that is impossible to determine with binoculars or any outside surveillance.
Why would BRH go to St. Raymond's Cemetery to collect ransom money not knowing if the baby's body had already been found? It was only 2 miles from the house, (walking distance), in an uncovered shallow grave. Could he have trusted these meetings in the cemetery to be safe? The cops could have been ambushing him.
What was Hauptmann going to do with a blonde blue-eyed baby after he took him home?
There is no evidence that he had a plan for keeping the child during the ransom negotiations. Police admitted that Anna had no knowledge of such a kidnapping so what was her husband going to do with a 20-month-old baby?
Gang Theories
Many believe more than one person was involved in the kidnapping. Anthony Scaduto, author of Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, found an FBI file which stated that Lindbergh told the cops he saw a "dark, swarthy man with a rolling gait" who was a lookout man for "Cemetery John." This evidence was never brought to trial.
Another piece of evidence that could have destroyed the "lone killer" belief was the difference in handwriting between the numerous ransom notes. Many experts believe that the 1st ransom note was written by a different person than the rest. These experts could have testified at the trial, but David Wilentz did not allow them to testify. It would have destroyed the "lone killer" theory.
Another clue that raises doubt about a lone killer theory is a phone conversation Dr. Condon claimed to have had with the "kidnappers." In the background during the phone conversation, Dr. Condon heard someone shouting "Statte cito" which means "shut up" in Italian. So the ransom notes were written by a German man, the telephone calls were from a Scandinavian or German with an Italian in the background? How could just one person be involved?
Click here to read about Detroit's infamous Purple Gang, Lindbergh claimed they might be responsible.
Who Helped Hauptmann ? by Edward Dean Sullivan - May 1935
The Butler ?
The late Wayne D. Jones, in his monumental book of 1200 pages, Murder of Justice: New Jersey's Greatest Shame, believed that the culprit was Oliver Whately, the Lindberghs' butler. His theory requires several people to have been involved.
Jones claims Whately must have helped Isidor Fisch climb the ladder and take the baby out of its crib, down the stairs and out the front door without anyone seeing a thing. The baby was then, according to Jones, sent to South America and raised on a chinchilla farm. Jones, like many theorists, did not believe that the remains found in the woods were those of the Lindbergh baby.
A Family Plot?
Bizarre claims that the Lindbergh baby is still alive have been made by numerous people. They claim to be the lost Lindbergh child who was the center of a plot to be removed from the Lindbergh family (for a variety of reasons) and raised elsewhere as children of other families.
They claim that their "father" - Charles Lindbergh - conspired to be rid of them by hiring people to help him, and his wife, with a plot to deceive the world about the loss of their first-born son.
One day, in the early 50s, a man knocked on the front door of the Lindbergh's Darien, Conn. home and 5-year-old Reeve was told that he was her long-lost brother Charles. The Lindbergh children had never been told about the death of their first brother or the trial in Flemington.
Sister Elizabeth and Family?
The late Noel Behn, author of Lindbergh: The Crime, believed that Elizabeth, Anne's sister, murdered the Eaglet in a mentally-deranged fit of jealous anger. Originally, in 1929, Lindbergh had shown interest in Elizabeth--but ended up proposing to Anne instead.
Elizabeth suffered from heart disease - not the kind of wife CAL would have preferred - he was a Eugenicist and a believer in White Supremacy. According to such beliefs people born with birth defects are considered to be a drain on society.
According to Behn, Lindbergh gave strict orders that Elizabeth not be alone with Charles Jr. After she supposedly killed the child , a few days before the actual disappearance was reported, the family conspired to make believe it had been a kidnapping to prevent the scandal that would ensue. Soon after the child's disappearance Elizabeth was put into an institution for her heart condition.
Throughout the 1950's, many rumored that Elizabeth was the culprit. If this theory is believable the Lindbergh family, the Morrow family, and the workers of both homes lied on the witness stand. The real problem with such a theory is that it requires the mother and grandmother of the dead child to allow Lindbergh to discard his son in a shallow, above - ground grave with nothing but leaves to cover him, and remain there for animals to eat. [NO. They want him to be found ASAP]
It is unlikely that both mother and grandmother would have gone along with that sort of a plan.
Behn did not believe the corpse found in the woods was the real Eaglet .[The horrible pic shows the over-lapping toes]
The Mob?
Many believe that the ransom money was extorted by members of the underworld who knew of Lindbergh's guilt and wished to take advantage of such knowledge.
NO GANG & NO CONSPIRACY?
Lindbergh's Kidnapping Hoax
It is entirely possible that no kidnapping ever took place at all but rather, a sadistic prank, typical of Lindbergh's boyish and cruel mentality, that went awry. This theory requires no one but Lindbergh himself. Only his lawyer Henry Breckenridge might have even known the truth. Lindbergh phoned Breckenridge before calling the State Police to report his child missing.
It is difficult for some people to believe that Lindbergh could be responsible for the death of his own son, however, anyone who studies his behavior, from the day of the supposed "kidnapping," recognizes that the man simply never behaved like he was very eager to retrieve his son.
Pranks?
Lindbergh was known for playing "practical jokes" of a very cruel and sadistic nature.
In the Army Reserves he often filled his bunkmates' beds with reptiles and spiders.
In the Army Reserves, Lindbergh filled a friend's canteen with kerosene and watched as he drank the fluid. Bud Gurney, in the photo at right, suffered severe internal burns and had to be hospitalized for many months. Lindbergh thought this was hysterically funny and bragged about it throughout his life.
2x weeks before the supposed "kidnapping" Lindbergh hid his baby in the trash closet to play a "joke" on his wife. He told everyone that the child had been kidnapped and allowed the joke to continue for over 20x minutes before revealing the location of the child.
There are many other documented accounts, from close friends or acquaintances, describing Lindbergh's abuse towards his wife as well as their 5x other children.
Skeptical Questions
There are numerous theories about what really happened the night of March 1, 1932. The evidence presented at the Trial of the Century was blatantly tainted - from rehabilitated witnesses who were promised part of the reward money if Hauptmann was convicted, (including someone with cataracts and another who was a pathological liar), to the tampered time sheets that would have proved Hauptmann's claim that he had been at work the day of the child's disappearance. [FVE]
The blobs of ink, covering the check marks on those time sheets, ought to have been enough evidence of the prosecutor's deceitfulness--yet no one cared. [FVE]
The ladder wood does not even match, there is a piece missing--yet the jurors were instructed by David Wilentz to use their imaginations! Irrationality ruled the Flemington courthouse.
New! since April 2020 - YOU TUBE LKH Channel
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2020
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/servants.html
The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
LINDBERGH HOUSEHOLD SERVANTS
POLICE STATEMENTS
Directory Books Search Home Transcript Sources
The State of NJ v. Bruno Richard Hauptmann: FAIRNESS ON TRIAL
by Judge W Dennis Duggan, JFC
Reprinted from The Albany County Bar Association Newsletter 01/04
Lindbergh Archivist Discovers NEW EVIDENCE [ACLU Execution Watch
Counter]
Forensic Evidence Removed By American Lindbergh Family [Guilty Demeanor]
The following Police Statements are from the N.J. State Police Museum and were contributed by researcher Siglinde Rach.
Special thanks to Archivist, Mark Falzini, for his help in providing these documents.
New! April, 2020 Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax YOU TUBE Channel
Oliver Whateley
Elsie Whateley
Septimus Banks
Chauffeur Charles Henry Ellerson
Betty Gow
Elsie Whateley and Betty Gow
Please visit:
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube Channel
ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2020
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/lindy.html
The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
Charles A. Lindbergh 1902 - 1974
"Kidnapping" Suspect #1
Directory Books Search Forum Home Transcript Sources
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube
Charles Lindbergh's ENTIRE Flemington Court Testimony
The New York Times Lindbergh Archive
The State of N.J. v. Hauptmann: FAIRNESS ON TRIAL
Lindbergh Archivist Discovers NEW EVIDENCE
Forensic Evidence Removed By Lindbergh Family
Freedom of Information Act - 1368 pages FBI Files
Conspiracy Nation - The Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby by Carol Wallace
Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism
Was Lindbergh a Nazi? Meet Lindbergh's Secret German Children Lindy Fears Hoffman
Fascism Part II: The Rise of American Fascism by Geoff Price - March 11, 2004
Charles Lindbergh became a hero in 1927. After flying solo in The Spirit of St. Louis across the Atlantic Ocean from New York to Paris he became a world hero of the status never to be seen again in American history.
In 1929, he married Anne Morrow, the shy daughter of a respected politician and businessman, Dwight Morrow. Morrow was a partner to J.P. Morgan and an enormously wealthy man whose death - in 1931 - saved New Jersey from bankruptcy due to the large estate taxes collected after his death.
Had he not passed away, Dwight Morrow's name may have been considered as a proper Republican candidate in the 1932 election - against Franklin Roosevelt.
Charles was 28x and his wife was 23x when their first son was born on Anne's birthday, June 22, 1930. The rumors, at the time of Charlie's birth, that he was not quite well are logical considering the unusually high altitude flight taken by Charles and Anne - 7x months pregnant - on Easter Sunday, 1930.
The Eaglet was referred to as "It" and "Buster" by his famous father who refused to release photos of his firstborn child and prohibited certain newspapers from doing so as well.
Because he took control of the investigation from the moment it began and because he did not allow Police and Federal authorities to do their jobs Lindbergh has, to this day, never been "cleared" in the way that other parents of missing children would have to be today.
Neither would he allow any interrogation of his servants - in Englewood or Hopewell. He stonewalled all normal requirements of a rational police investigation making it impossible for investigators to do their jobs. He was never publicly blamed for any of this stonewalling as the public absolutely adored their hero and would not have tolerated any condemnation of him - especially since he was the father of the missing baby.
By allowing the "crime scene" to get colder and colder, Lindbergh caused the circus that ensued by his unbelievable stupidity for which the cops - especially, H. Norman Schwarzkopf - took the blame for bungling the case. But, was it really stupidity? Or, was Lindbergh playing a more sinister role by purposely misleading the authorities - and especially, his wife? [NO. NOT STUPIDITY--COLLUSION. Free Masons covering up for other Free Masons]
WHERE WAS HE ON MARCH 1, 1932?
On the night of the baby's disappearance, Lindbergh had not only returned home late--but had also failed to show up at the Waldorf Astoria where almost 2,000 NYU guests awaited his arrival for their centennial festivities.
Unfortunately, the Police never asked him where he had been all day and why he arrived home late. At Hauptmann's trial, 3x years later, he said he couldn't remember where he had been but he probably went to the Rockefeller [pedo-Illuminati] Institute where he was doing research with Alexis Carrel and he may have gone to the dentist .
There is also his baffling claim that he heard the sound of crates or wood falling between 9 and 10 PM while sitting with his wife on a sofa in their living room. Though Lindbergh never got up off the sofa to check out the noise, the Police believed this story and used it to determine the time of the supposed kidnap. But, Anne was sitting with him and she never testified about his having heard any sound. It is more likely he just made it up at a later date to give himself an alibi.
Lindbergh was, by everyone's standards, a control freak and ANY strange sound in his home would surely have been investigated immediately. Yet, he did nothing to find out the source of those "falling crates."
Michael Melsky
Re: Now that you mention it.
Apr 6, 2002
posted on the LKH Forum
Agent Larimer Report 3-4-33:
p5
Colonel Lindbergh informed that....
(omit)
It was a household rule that no one, including the nurse, was to disturb the child while sleeping between the hours of 8:00 and 10:00 P.M.
(omit)
Shortly before eight o'clock on the night of March 1, 1932, the baby was in its crib in the nursery. From the hour of 8:30 to 9:15 P. M., Colonel Lindbergh and his wife were at dinner in the dining room on the first floor. The dining room is situated on the south side of the first floor, but separated from the library by a parlor. From approximately 9:15 to 9:30 P.M., Colonel Lindbergh and his wife sat in the parlor next to the dining room, then went to the second floor bedroom for a few minutes and returned to the first floor. In the meantime, continuously, Betty Gow was either in the kitchen or the west parlor on the first floor from 8:00 to 10:00 P.M. The Whatelys were in the kitchen on the first floor during that period. About 9:50 P.M., Colonel Lindbergh went into the library immediately under the nursery, where he sat reading for about ten minutes. At approximately ten o'clock Betty Gow went to the nursery and returned to Colonel Lindbergh on the first floor, asking him if he had taken the baby...
***No metion of a "breaking" sound here - Must have slipped C's mind...
Agent Larimer even notices and makes mention of it:
p7
Colonel Lindbergh seemed rather inaccurate as to details, and inasmuch as a later visit was contemplated, only the more pertinent points were touched upon in instant investigation.
THE "INVESTIGATION"
Lindbergh headed the investigation of his own child throughout the beginning weeks and months - up until the corpse was found in the woods nearby. He also drove the self-appointed intermediary, Dr. Condon a.k.a. Jafsie, to St. Raymond's Cemetery in the Bronx for the second meeting with "John."
PARANORMAL HEARING?
Lindbergh sat in the car while Jafsie went to meet the man who shouted "Hey Doctor!" or "Ay Doc!" Both men would later change their testimony several times.
Lindbergh, sitting half a block away with the windows rolled up testified at the trial that he heard the voice of Hauptmann- it was now almost 3 years later! This is not humanly possible.
THE DEAF EAGLE?
Now, Lindbergh's youngest daughter, Reeve, has written a memoir - Under A Wing - in which she claims her father was hard-of-hearing during her childhood. He refused to allow his children to use cotton balls as protection against painfully loud airplane engines and he never guarded his own eardrums from the roaring engines either.
TESTI-LYING LINDY
When Hauptmann was first arrested, Lindbergh said he would not be able to identify "Cemetery John's" voice because it was now more than two years later and he only heard 2x words.
However, after the police ordered Hauptmann to shout the words "Hey Doc," in a room filled with many cops and a disguised Lindbergh, the hero changed his mind and suddenly claimed he remembered the voice.
He said it was Hauptmann without a doubt. Hauptmann never knew Lindbergh had been in the room during that staged shouting.
During the trial, Lindbergh listened intently. Anne attended the proceedings twice, but her testimony was very brief. The defence attorney, Ed Reilly never even questioned Anne as a witness. [The John Adams Adversarial System isn't concerned with finding out what happened!]
Lindbergh, sitting at the Prosecution's table, only looked at Hauptmann twice during the trial, according to some journalists.
He also carried a gun into the courtroom which was seen, under his jacket, each time he leaned forward. [So fucking what?]
H.L. MENCKEN'S DIARY
In The Book of American Diaries there is a quote from H.L. Mencken's Jan 21, 1935 diary entry that seems to lend credence to Ahlgren's and Monier's theory.
"Dr. Marjorie Nicolson, dean of Smith College, was here for lunch yesterday...She has been in Washington attending a meeting of the Smith Alumnae Assoc. With her there was young Constance Morrow, sister to Mrs. Lindbergh....Dr. William A. Neilson, president of Smith, was at Flemington, New Jersey at the time of the opening of the Hauptmann trial and saw a great deal of the Lindberghs. He told Dr. Nicolson that Mrs. Lindbergh laughed at the newspaper accounts of her heroic bearing on the stand. She said that the kidnapping was now an old story to the Morrow family, and that they had begun to look at it objectively - in fact, they had reached such a point that they made limericks on the names of the witnesses at the trial. All of the shock and sorrow were endured and survived long ago.
Lindbergh, according to Dr. Neilson, goes to the trial as to a show, and is delighted that he has so good a seat. Like his wife, he has absolutely no heat against Hauptmann. The thing, he feels, is now out of his hands, and what interests him mainly is the sheer drama of it."
["The Rich are Another Country".]
THE HERO FLEES
On December 5, 1935, it was announced in the Press that Gov. Harold Hoffman was calling for further investigation of the trial. He suspected evidence was manufactured by the N.J. cops and David Wilentz, the Attorney General.
On the very next day, Dec. 6, Anne wrote in her diary that Charles had given her orders to pack up the house - they are moving to Europe! The NY Times reporter, Deak Lyman, had been given the "scoop" by Lindbergh himself, that they would be fleeing this country for a better life elsewhere since they cannot live with the reporters and journalists snooping into their lives. [Guilty Demeanor]
But, it is no coincidence that the famous aviator secretly acquired passports and visas for himself, his wife, and new child Jon, (a curious name considering his baby brother had supposedly been killed by Cemetery John!)
The Lindberghs fled to England on Dec 19 and the world was duped once again. The Press has been eternally blamed for chasing the Lindberghs to Europe--but the truth is fairly obvious - Lindbergh knew he could not remain in this country if a skeptical governor did not believe the condemned man was guilty.
"The Night the Lindbergh Baby Disappeared"
by Seth Moseley.
Yankee Magazine, March 1982
Sue Campbell contributed this article to the LKH Forum
"This reporter has never forgotten those four years, for luck -- plus nerve and verve -- led me to Colonel Lindbergh for the first interview relating the earliest hours of the horror he and his wife shared..."
The ambassador's son, Dwight, Jr. and I were fraternity brothers and good friends...
On the night of March 1, a Tuesday, it rained in New York. We turned in early. As I slept, a crack Associated Press reporter, Sam Blackman -- later an AP executive -- finished his stint covering the state legislature then in session in Trenton and went back to the capitol press room...
"Lindbergh baby kidnapped!" an editor shouted.
Blackman ran to his car and drove to Hopewell. He knew the obscure road that snaked 3x miles north of town to the Lindbergh estate. He'd been there before for a story or two. The father, mother, and child were the best-known family in the world...
The next morning 5 A.M., the phone rang in [Mosley's] room. "The Lindbergh baby is stolen," said Al Williams, the "overnight" editor. "You know young Dwight Morrow, we hear. He's in the Lindbergh house. Get out to Hopewell, New Jersey, and see Lindbergh and phone me."I asked him where Hopewell was.."
In Hopewell, veteran reporters from New York, New Jersey, and Pennslyvania were in the village, pinned down by 200 state troopers. The "sensational" dailies -- the tabloids -- were there in full editorial force. No one could break through the cordon of police. I wrote a note: 'Dwight, May I see you for a minute? I'm with the Journal. Seth Moseley." A trooper took the note and drove to the home. Young Morrow was not in the house, but 20x minutes later a Franklin sedan pulled up. The driver told me to get in. There was a rifle on the rear seat. The driver wore a black jacket and gray trousers. We drove a mile toward the Lindbergh house and stopped. The man turned toward me. It was Charles Lindbergh.
"What do you want?" He was abrupt, cool. I said I'd like his version of what had happened -- from the start.
"I have no reason to talk to you," he said. "I don't like your publisher [William Randolph Hearst] Publicity is hurting us. The less we're in the newspapers the more chance we have of finding Charles. I have nothing to say."
I told him I had a job to do. I knew nothing, I said of his relationship to Mr. Hearst. I said the kidnapping was a matter of public record. He was adamant about not talking. But when I said that if he declined to talk to me 150 reporters would descend on him in 60 minutes, each demanding an audience, he relented.
My notes are long gone now, and neither the New York Public Library nor the Hearst organization has a copy of New York Evening Journal's "Extra" with a page 1 interview descending in vertical columns under the headline:
"I was a gulping 22-year-old cub reporter". But I asked questions. "When did you know the child was missing?" I asked.
"Sometime after nine o'clock last night. The boy's nurse, Betty Gow, came downstairs. I was i the library. Mrs. Lindbergh was upstairs about to retire. Miss Gow had gone into the baby's room, for he had a cold and she wanted to check him. The child wasn't there. She went to Mrs. Lindbergh and asked her if she had the child. She didn't. Then Miss Gow came downstairs and asked if I had him. The child was gone."
"'Was there any immediate clue in the child's room?"
"Yes. There was a note propped up on the radiator under the southeast window. It was a ransom note, but I didn' open it right away. Thought there might be fingerprints.
Whatley [Oliver Whateley, the butler] telephoned the Hopewell police. A few minutes later I called the state police in Trenton and reported the child missing."
Lindbergh said he then got his rifle and made a thorough search of the grounds, he and Whateley carrying flashlights, before and after police arrived. Meanwhile, his wife, the nurse, and Elsie Whateley, the cook-houskeeper who was the butler's wife, covered all 12x rooms of the house, the cellar and attic, and the garage.
"Before Mrs. Lindbergh went upstairs -- we had been sitting in the living room earlier -- I heard a sound outside, a sound like a box falling, wood hitting other wood. But it was a windy night and we ignored the sound."
Lindbergh revealed that the two Hopewell policemen who responded "very quickly" -- Harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson -- discovered two holes pressed into yellow clay beneath the nursery window. There were also "footprints" but they were blurred.
"The Hopewell police officers found parts of a ladder, in three sections. One of the rungs and one of the rail were split. And they found a chisel. Perhaps if had been brought to pry open a window. But the nursery window was not locked."
New Jersey state police, under Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf, had arrived shortly afterward.
"One of the state police, a fingerprint man, put on gloves and went over the envelope for fingerprints. He didn't find any."
What did the note say?"
"It asked for $50,000, but right now I can't discuss the rest of the note."
"Who would want to take your child, Colonel Lindbergh?"
Arguments from the LKH Forum
Nancy
Motive, means and
oppurtunity and police help
Fri Apr 20 2001
... the police were a huge help to Lindbergh since they considered everyone but the parents of the victim to be a likely suspect and investigated the crime on this premise. If the police had done their job, investigating Lindbergh along with all other possible suspects, things would have turned out differently I am sure. The fact that the police and prosecutors were blinded by hero worship along with most of the rest of the country is part of what many people find troubling about this case.
How can we have justice if the police do not investigate crimes based on motive, opportunity and physical evidence? If Hauptmann was an extortionist, which I could believe based on the facts we know now, he did have a motive for taking the baby. However the facts show that H. did not have the opportunity: witnesses place him elsewhere, no reliable witnesses place him at the scene and the timing/location for an outsider kidnapping is terribly problematic. Physical evidence is primarily the ransome letter and the ladder. The letter it is weak [NO, DISQUALIFIED as evidence--FVE] evidence because handwriting analysis is not terribly scientific, with experts on both sides of the question of whether or not Hauptmann wrote the note. Thanks again to police bias we do not have reliable, uncoerced handwriting samples from Hauptmann for comparison.
The primary evidence linking the ladder to Hauptmann (his attic floor) was totally in the private control of the police for many months and outside a reliable chain of command. Even if the evidence wood was strong, which is debatable, one has to ignore it based on the strong possibility of police tampering (think of the O.J. Simpson case: The vial of OJ's blood that detective Vanatter kept with him, breaking the chain of command, was what should have put O.J. in prison, but thanks to that break in the chain it set him free). [FVE].
Richard Hauptmann had no opportunity to kidnap/kill Charles Lindbergh Jr. The physical evidence which is not open to the possibility of police tampering does not link him to the crime scene. Hauptmann may have a motive for kidnapping if you believe him to an extortionist. Perhaps if H. had been given the lie detector test he so wanted the motive question could have been answered?
Lindbergh, on the other hand, may have had the motive for purposeful murder (defective baby) or accidental murder (playing a 'joke' on wife and servants similar to one he played on them with the baby several months earlier). He certainly had the opportunity (he was at the scene and his earlier whereabouts were never checked). Now that we have DNA testing, if the ransom envelope flap was tested and compared to a sample from Lindbergh or his children we could also have the physical evidence link.
Michelle
There wouldn't have to be
"something wrong"
Wed Aug 2001
...with Lindbergh's baby for the eugenic theory - CAL would only have to think the child was not his idea of perfection.
Doesn't the eugenics/Nazi ideology seem much like embryonic cell research now? (running & ducking....!) Sort of like the Nazi experimenting on people because they would die in the camps anyway. Would Lindbergh have wanted to take a chance on his "line" being compromised? Actually, I take a rather dim view of a deliberate murder theory on this basis, because it seems it would be easy to put a pillow over the baby's face, or give an accidental overdose of medicine - happens all the time, and wasn't suspected then. Or send away to an "auntie in Switzerland for the fresh air", or something. Boo Radley's parents probably didn't think of it.
I was wondering if anyone thought that this was a toilet-training provoked thing? It is such a big cause of death in toddlers and young children (Jon-Benet Ramsey?) and I remember mention of the child being awakened to put on the potty chair. It's hard to speculate on that because children were toilet trained much earlier in those times.
Hey! my original question was about the possible early death of CAL's grandchild, also named Charles. Does anyone know if this is true?
Please visit :
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube Channel
ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2020
Directory Books Search Home Forum Transcript Sources
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/questions.html
The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax
Skeptical Concerns Regarding the Execution of Bruno Richard Hauptmann
Directory Books Search Home Forum Transcript Sources
New! The State of NJ v.
Bruno Richard Hauptmann: FAIRNESS ON
TRIAL
by Judge W Dennis Duggan, JFC [ACLU Execution Watch Counter]
reprinted from The Albany County Bar Association Newsletter 01/04
New! 2020 Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Ronelle Delmont's Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube Channel
Lindbergh Archivist Discovers NEW EVIDENCE
Freedom of Information Act - 1368 pages of Lindbergh Files
Forensic Evidence Removed By American Lindbergh Family
Richard Hauptmann's life was taken on April 3, 1936
by the State of New Jersey with all of the following questions unanswered.
Go To.......Questions About Lindbergh
Go To.......Ellis Parker's Questions
Go To......Rail 16 Police Frame-up Arguments
The NYU Centennial Dinner Controversy
Not a single footprint or fingerprint, at the Hopewell house, "belonged to Hauptmann". The ladder contained over 400x sets of prints--yet none belonged to him.
Why didn't the Lindbergh family dog bark? Anne and the household staff admitted the dog always barked at strangers, but Lindbergh gave somewhat muddled testimony at Hauptmann's trial that Wahgoosh wouldn't be expected to bark. Why the differing opinion?
Why did Osborn, the handwriting expert testify that the defendant's request writings were identical to the obviously disguised writings of the ransom note? Does it make sense that Hauptmann wrote in his supposedly disguised hand during the police requests for handwriting samples?
Why did Ed "Death House" Reilly refuse to see his client for more than 20x - 40x minutes during the entire case? Is that a fair trial or is it grounds for a mistrial?
Why did Dr. Erastus Hudson testify there were no holes in the ladder rail when he originally dusted it for fingerprints in March 1932? Was Dr. Hudson wrong or did Lt. Bornmann frame Hauptmann by nailing the ladder rail to the attic floor so they could say it came from his attic?
Why wasn't the nursery ransom note found in the crib where the missing baby had slept? Lindbergh claimed to have found it on the window sill. A strange place for a real kidnapper to have left the most important document of his crime. If the envelope had flown out of the window how would he get paid?
How did anyone know about the warped nursery shutters unless they lived inside the house? These were the only shutters in the entire house that were defective.
If Cemetery John had been in the nursery why didn't he know the note was NOT found in the crib?
Why would a real kidnapper, knowing the child was lying dead just a mile from his home, undertake such excruciatingly long, unnecessarily drawn-out negotiations and risk discovery of the corpse?
Why is the attic floorboard a different thickness from Rail 16? And, where is the missing piece that is supposed to have connected both planks? David Wilentz told jurors to "use their imaginations" in order to make them match!
How reliable is the testimony of Koehler the supposed "wood expert"? He requested part of the $25,000.00 reward money after Hauptmann's electrocution. Was his "research" based upon greed as much as his own erroneous theories?
Why was Lt. Louis Bornmann able to "discover" a missing floorboard in Hauptmann's attic after the FBI, the N.Y. and N.J. cops, scoured the attic 19x times and had found nothing?
Why was the child taken from the nursery at a time when everyone inside the house was still awake? Lights were on all over the house and all 4 people inside were walking around freely.
Why were there no fingerprints in the nursery? If Betty and Anne had searched the room when the baby was first discovered missing how could their fingerprints have disappeared by the time the police arrived? Someone had to have wiped them off but who? There were only 5x people in the house - Betty, Anne, Oliver, Elsie, and Lindbergh. (Maybe the dog did it?)
Why was the ransom demand so low? Only $50,000.00 for one of the wealthiest babies in the country?
Why did Isidor Fisch pay for his boat ticket to Austria with ransom bills? Why did the defense suppress the information?
What happened to the Reliance Management books? Why were they suddenly missing for the extradition hearings?
Why did so many people who originally told police they heard and saw nothing claim to have "remembered" things better AFTER Hauptmann was arrested?
There were several other lookouts hanging around the vicinity of each cemetery meeting - how could Wilentz have claimed Hauptmann, if he was Cemetery John, was a lone kidnapper?
Why was the sleeping suit washed and why wasn't Anne Morrow made to identify the various decorations on it so that the jury would be sure it belonged to her baby and that it was not an imitation?
Why was Hauptmann allowed to testify WITHOUT a German translator?
Why was no handwriting testimony offered to prove Hauptmann wrote the original nursery note? Handwriting evidence and testimony of "experts" avoid comparisons to the nursery note.
Why did Hauptmann turn down $90,000 from the Evening Journal to "confess" his story to them? Anna would have received the money and he could have provided a life for her and his child had he done so.
Why would a guilty person use the ransom money, knowing that the police were possibly tracing it? A guilty person would have given the money to someone else in order not to get caught. [BINGO]
Why did Hauptmann not take advantage of Wilentz' last minute offer to commute the death sentence to life in prison? He could have "confessed" to avoid sitting in the electric chair?
Why did Judge Trenchard allow the ladder as evidence even though chain-of-custody could not be vouched for by Police? It had been taken apart so many times and put back together again. There were many copies made by police in order to re enact the crime.
Why was there no mistrial claimed by the defense when Judge Trenchard uttered the advice to the jurors ; "Now, do you believe that?"
Questions About Lindbergh
Why didn't Lindbergh attend the NYU Centennial Dinner on Tuesday night March 1 1932?
Why did Lindbergh order everyone in the house to leave the envelope untouched for over two hours? Why was he so unconcerned about finding out the "kidnapper's" demands? His son's life depended upon this information yet Lindbergh wouldn't even allow the cops to open it until it could be dusted for fingerprints - 2x hours later!
How did Lindbergh even know it was a ransom note in the first place? The sealed envelope had absolutely NO writing on it.
Why did Lindbergh load a shotgun and proclaim it to be a kidnapping without doing a search of the house first?
Why did Lindbergh call his lawyer BEFORE calling the Police?
Why did Lindbergh wait 10x days before agreeing that Hauptmann's voice was the same voice he heard in the cemetery?
How is it possible that Lindbergh could even recognize a person's voice, spoken 2 and a half years earlier, from a great distance and from someone he never even met?
Why didn't Anne or Betty see the ransom note supposedly sitting on the window sill during their initial search of the nursery? Lindbergh was the "discoverer" of this note and was alone in the nursery when he did so.
Why did Lindbergh refuse to allow the police to carry out normal investigation procedures? He rejected the use of bloodhounds. [dogs] Dean Hiblin of Princeton University offered his entire student body as a human search chain but all of this, and much more, was rejected by Lindbergh who claimed they would mess up the crime scene. [CAL knew Eglet was buried nearby by HIM]
Why did Lindbergh refuse to permit the police to question his wife or his employees?
Why did Lindbergh refuse help from the FBI? He put them in his garage with the journalists.
Why did Lindbergh cremate his son's body when he didn't cremate himself?
How could Lindbergh testify at the trial of John Hughes Curtis about a kidnap gang and 3x years later testify at Hauptmann's trial about a "lone killer"? (BTW, the Curtis trial transcript is missing.)
How could someone other than a member of the Lindbergh household know that the family would be at the Hopewell house on the Tuesday of the child's disappearance? This was the very first time they had ever stayed at Hopewell on a Tuesday.
How could Lindbergh lead the police straight to the ladder marks in the ground outside the nursery window when he had no flashlight or batteries?
Why were the ladder rungs so far apart? Was it made for a very tall person? Or, was it made as a portable gangplank for his pontooned Sirius [seaplane]?
A vacation flight with "no start or finish, no diplomatic or commercial significance, and no records to be sought." So Charles A. Lindbergh described the flight that he and his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, were planning to make to the Orient in 1931. Their choice of route, however, showed the feasibility of using the great circle to reach the Far East.
The Lindberghs flew in a Lockheed Sirius low-wing monoplane, powered by a 680-hp Wright Cyclone. The Sirius had been designed in 1929 by John K. Northrop and Gerard Vultee, and this model was specially fitted with Edo floats, since most of the Lindberghs flight was to be over water.
Their route took them from North Haven, Maine, to Ottawa, Moose Factory, Churchill, Baker Lake, and Aklavik, all in Canada; Point Barrow, Shismaref, and Nome, Alaska; Petropavlosk. Siberia; and on over the Kurile Islands to Japan. After receiving an enthusiastic welcome in Tokyo, they flew to China. They landed on Lotus Lake near Nanking on September 19, thus completing the first flight from the West to the East by way of the North.
At Hankow, the Sirius, with the Lindberghs aboard, was being lowered into the Yangtze River from the British aircraft carrier Hermes, when the aircraft accidentally capsized. One of the wings was damaged when it hit a ship’s cable, and the aircraft had to be returned to the United States for repairs.
Their next venture in the Sirius came as a result of the five countries’ interest in the development of commercial air transport. In 1933 Pan American Airways, Imperial Airways of Great Britain, Lufthansa of Germany, KLM of Holland, and Air France undertook a cooperative study of possible Atlantic routes. Each was assigned the responsibility for one of the following areas: New Newfoundland to Europe via Greenland; Newfoundland via the great circle route to Ireland; Newfoundland southeast to the Azores and Lisbon; Miami, Bermuda, the Azores, and Lisbon; and across the South Atlantic from Natal, Brazil, to Cape Verde, Africa.
Pan American was to survey the Newfoundland to Europe via Greenland route. Ground survey and weather crews in Greenland were already hard at work when Lindbergh, Pan Am’s technical advisor, took off from New York on July 9 in the rebuilt Lockheed Sirius, again accompanied by his wife, who would serve as copilot and radio operator. A Sperry artificial horizon and a directional gyro had been added to the instrument panel since the previous flight, and a new Wright Cyclone SR1820-F2 engine of 710 horsepower was installed. Lindbergh’s plan was not to set up a particular route but to gather as much information as possible on the area to be covered.
The Jellinge, a Danish ship, was chartered by Pan Am to maintain radio contact with the Lindberghs in the Labrador-Greenland-Iceland area. The ship also delivered advance supplies for them to Halifax, Saint John’s, Cartwright, Greenland, and Iceland.
Every possible space in the aircraft was utilized, including the wings and floats, which contained the gasoline tanks. There was plenty of emergency equipment in case the Lindberghs had to make a forced landing in the frozen wilderness.
From New York, the Lindberghs flew up the eastern border of Canada to Hopedale, Labrador. From Hopedale they made the first major overwater hop, 650 miles to Godthaab, Greenland, where the Sirius acquired its name—Tingmissartoq, which in Eskimo means "one who flies like a big bird."
After crisscrossing Greenland to Baffin Island and back, and then on to Iceland, the Lindberghs proceeded to the major cities of Europe and as far east as Moscow, down the west coast of Africa, and across the South Atlantic to South America. where they flew down the Amazon, and then north through Trinidad and Barbados and back to the United States.
They returned to New York on December 19, having traveled 30,000 miles to four continents and twenty-one countries. The information gained from the trip proved invaluable in planning commercial air transport routes for the North and South Atlantic.
The aircraft was in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City until 1955. The AirForce Museum in Dayton, Ohio, then acquired it and transferred it to the Smithsonian in 1959.
****
Why did Lindbergh take his wife flying for 6x months and leave the second child (Jon) alone with a nurse? Why did they show no concern for the second child's safety?
Why did Lindbergh immediately obtain secret visas to leave America on the day after Gov. Hoffman's plan to re-investigate the trial was announced in the Press?
Why did they name the second baby Jon? Wasn't "Cemetery John's" name offensive to them after the death of their first son?
If the Lindberghs really believed their first baby had been killed by a supposedly Germanic "gang" - WHY did they move into a Yorkville, NYC (Germantown) apartment WHILE the cops were still hunting for the supposedly German kidnappers?
Why did Lindbergh refuse to allow Treasury Dept. investigators to record all the serial numbers of the ransom money before giving it to a guy in a cemetery?
Please visit :
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Forum
Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax You Tube Channel
ronelle@LindberghKidnappingHoax.com
Michael Melsky's Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board
© Copyright Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax 1998 - 2020
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/venn-diagram.asp
What Is a Venn Diagram? Components, Examples, and Applications
By WILL KENTON Updated March 28, 2023
Reviewed by AMY DRURY
Fact checked by TIMOTHY LI
Venn Diagram
Investopedia / Xiaojie Liu
What Is a Venn Diagram?
A Venn diagram is an
illustration that uses circles to show the relationships among things or finite
groups of things. Circles that overlap have a commonality while circles that do
not overlap do not share those traits.
Venn diagrams help to visually represent the similarities and differences between two concepts. They have long been recognized for their usefulness as educational tools. Since the mid-20th century, Venn diagrams have been used as part of the introductory logic curriculum and in elementary-level educational plans around the world.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A Venn diagram uses circles
that overlap or don't overlap to show the commonalities and differences among
things or groups of things.
Things that have
commonalities are shown as overlapping circles while things that are distinct
stand alone.
Venn diagrams are now used
as illustrations in business and in many academic fields.
Understanding Venn Diagrams
Venn diagrams are useful for
illustrating how different concepts or factors intersect with one another. They
can show, at a glance, how things are similar or different and where and how
they overlap. Often, the center of a Venn diagram (the intersection of two or
more circles) represents some nexus or main idea that can be decomposed into
the various other circles, with labels on the outer portions more general and
distinct ideas than those toward the center.
The overlapping areas can also be used to show where two otherwise disparate contexts share commonalities. For instance, in the example diagram below we see that while the urban and rural contexts are distinct with their own set of acivities, they also do share sporting events.
Venn Diagram
Venn Diagram (click to enlarge). Grace Fleming
Venn Diagram Components
While there are many ways to organize a Venn diagram, they most often consist of overlapping circles. Each circle by itself represents a set, which may include ideas, concepts, numbers, or objects.
When circles overlap or intersect, those sub-sets that are shared are known as a union or intersection. Areas that don't overlap show differences between sets, and a complement set refers to everything not shared by a particular set or sub-set.
The History and Origin of Venn Diagrams
The English logician John Venn
popularized the diagram in the 1880s.
1
He called them Eulerian circles after the Swiss mathematician Leonard Euler, who created similar diagrams in the 1700s.
2
The term Venn diagram did not appear until 1918 when Clarence Lewis, an American academic philosopher and the eventual founder of conceptual pragmatism, referred to the circular depiction as the Venn diagram in his book A Survey of Symbolic Logic.
3
Venn studied and taught logic and probability theory at Cambridge University, where he developed his method of using diagrams to illustrate the branch of mathematics known as set theory. He published a precedent-setting work, The Logic of Chance, which explained the frequency theory of probability.
4
In it, he argued that probability, contrary to popular assumption, should be established based on the regularity with which something is predicted to occur. In another book, Symbolic Logic, Venn built on and developed mathematician George Boole’s theories on algebra.
5
This work helped him develop the Venn diagram.
Venn diagrams have been used since the mid-20th century in classrooms from the elementary school level to introductory logic.
Applications for Venn Diagrams
Venn diagrams are used to depict how items relate to each other against an overall backdrop, universe, data set, or environment. A Venn diagram could be used, for example, to compare two companies within the same industry by illustrating the products both companies offer (where circles overlap) and the products that are exclusive to each company (outer circles).
Venn diagrams are, at a basic level, simple pictorial representations of the relationship that exists between two sets of things. However, they can be much more complex. Still, the streamlined purpose of the Venn diagram to illustrate concepts and groups has led to their popularized use in many fields, including statistics, linguistics, logic, education, computer science, and business.
Examples of Venn Diagrams
A Venn diagram could be
drawn to illustrate fruits that come in red or orange colors. Below, we can see
that there are orange fruits (circle B) such as persimmons and tangerines while
apples and cherries (circle A) come in red colors. Peppers and tomatoes come in
both red and orange colors, as represented by the overlapping area of the two
circles.
Image 1
Image by Julie Bang ©
Investopedia 2020
You might also draw a Venn
diagram to help decide which of two cars to purchase. The Venn diagram shows
the features that are exclusive to each car and the features that both cars
have.
Below, we see that Car A is a sedan that's powered by gasoline and gets 20 miles per gallon, while Car B is a hybrid, gets 40 miles-per-gallon for mileage, and is a hatchback.
Image 2
Image by Julie Bang ©
Investopedia 2020
The shaded region where the
two circles overlap shows the features that both cars have in common, which
include a radio, four doors, Bluetooth capability, and airbags.
The Venn diagram graphically conveys the similarities and differences between the two cars to help decide which to purchase.
What Is a Venn Diagram in Math?
A Venn diagram in math is
used in logic theory and set theory to show various sets or data and their
relationship with each other.
How Do You Read a Venn Diagram?
A Venn diagram is read by
observing all of the circles that make up the entire diagram. Each circle is
its own item or data set. The portions of the circles that overlap indicate the
areas that are in common amongst the different items whereas the parts that do
not overlap indicate unique traits among the item or data set represented by
the circle.
Why Are They Called Venn Diagrams?
They are called Venn
diagrams because the diagram was developed by John Venn, an English logician.
What Is the Middle of a Venn Diagram Called?
The middle of a Venn diagram
where two or more sets overlap is known as the intersection.
Does a Venn Diagram Always Use 2 or 3 Circles?
While often employing a pair
or triplet of circles, Venn diagram can use any number of circles (or any other
shape) to show the differences and intersections of different sets.
****
John 3:16
Semper Airborne!
James Bond is REAL.
Comments
Post a Comment