The kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby is still one of the most notorious crimes in American history. Almost a hundred years later, it continues to fire the imagination and inspire controversy. On March 1, 1932, Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh lived every parent’s worst nightmare. Their 20-month-old son, Charles A. Lindbergh Jr., was kidnapped from his crib in their home in Hopewell, New Jersey. That tragic abduction marked the beginning of a long, dark, and torturous history for the Lindbergh family. They now endured grief beyond imagination upon learning that their child had been murdered.
Bruno Hauptmann was a 36-year-old German-born immigrant. In 1935, for example, he was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 9-year-old boy. His conviction was based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. They found a stash of ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage and the wood taken from a ladder matched wood beams from his house. Doubts about his guilt never entirely went away. This uncertainty deepened as “Cemetery John,” the man who collected the ransom via an intermediary at a Bronx cemetery, did not match Hauptmann.
In September 1934, authorities arrested Hauptmann when he attempted to use a $10 bill. That bill was among the $50,000 ransom paid by Charles Lindbergh. Even during the trial and afterwards, Hauptmann’s insistence that he was innocent raised doubts about the justice of his conviction. The case had a more lasting impact on American legal history. It led to warranted reforms, such as the extension of FBI investigative jurisdiction in kidnapping cases involving interstate travel and photography bans in federal and state courthouses.
A new lawsuit hopes to bring that heat back. It can do nothing less than exonerate Hauptmann by permitting mitochondrial DNA testing on the envelopes used to deposit each of the ransom notes. Jonathan Hagel, Michele Downie, and Catherine Read were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. In their view, any saliva remaining on the back of stamps and glue could provide crucial forensic evidence as to whether Hauptmann operated alone or in concert with unknown accomplices.
Researchers will be clamoring to get their hands on more than a quarter-million documents, photographs and other pieces of evidence. These internationally significant materials are archived in the New Jersey State Police Museum’s archive located in West Trenton. This archive has been in the public domain ever since an executive order by former New Jersey Governor Brendan Byrne 44 years ago.
Kurt Perhach, an advocate for transparency in historic criminal cases, told Law.com that he was doubtful of the motivations driving today’s efforts.
“This is a 93-year-old case and I don’t think they actually care about knowing the truth.” – Kurt Perhach
In the face of such skepticism advocates for DNA testing continue to argue that developments in forensic science evolve and bring forth new information. Angelique Corthals, a researcher specializing in forensic DNA analysis, noted that the advancements were rightfully exciting.
“We have the technology to amplify very, very small amounts of DNA and are getting better at parsing out contaminant DNA, including recovering particles from a document or a stamp without destroying it.” – Angelique Corthals
Perhach is hopeful that more evidence is yet to be found, hidden in the dusty envelopes from 1932. He noted that there are really 15 envelopes in all. Each envelope comes with 12 stamps and adhesive already attached, which likely still hold some remnants of saliva.
“In the event that Hauptmann’s DNA is found on the envelopes it just proves he was a conspirator like everyone knew, but the broader concern they have is that extending the Open Public Records Act will open up DNA testing in future cases.” – Angelique Corthals
The lawsuit has reignited discussions surrounding historical accuracy and justice, emphasizing that “the very idea of historical or legal truth has come under political pressure. It is incumbent on those of us who prize truthfulness in our public life to use every tool at our disposal to affirm its value.”
“Maybe there is no more saliva available there, but unless somebody in 1932 had the foresight to dab water on the adhesive there’s a high likelihood that there’s still saliva attached to these pieces of paper.” – Kurt Perhach
As this case continues to develop, it brings to light deeper issues regarding justice and accountability for historical crimes. The Lindbergh baby kidnapping remains a chilling example. It underscores the stranglehold that cold cases can hold over a community years after the fact. Advocates for DNA testing hope that this new effort will shed light on an event that profoundly affected American culture and legal practices.
As this case unfolds, it highlights broader questions about justice and accountability in historical crimes. The Lindbergh baby kidnapping continues to serve as a stark reminder of how unresolved mysteries can haunt society long after they occur. Advocates for DNA testing hope that this new effort will shed light on an event that profoundly affected American culture and legal practices.