|
Post by firebird on Dec 27, 2021 23:40:00 GMT -5
Hello, new guy here. I finished reading Lindbergh by a. Scott Berg and Rise and Fall of Charles Lindbergh by Candance Fleming . Those two books left me with questions. I see C.A.L. as a man of science who would fix his baby boy if he had disabilities (rickets) not kill him. My Hauptmann question is this: how did he know what room the babys crib was in and how did he know when the Lindberghs would be there?. I'm sorry if this has been discussed but I was unable to find it. Nice to be here.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 28, 2021 7:53:45 GMT -5
Hi 1971firebird, New members with new opinions are especially welcome to our forum. The question of how Hauptmann or any kidnapper would know the Lindberghs were at home, and the location of the nursery have indeed been discussed and various theories, mostly indicating "an inside job" have been advanced. There is anecdotal evidence that it wasn't just rickets the child suffered from. His head was abnormally large, the fontanella had not fused together as would be expected in a 20 month old child, and no photographs of him after his 1st birthday have been made public. Basically, a conspiracy of silence surrounds the child's true condition. Recommended further reading is "The case that never dies" by C Lloyd Gardner, the most thorough, balanced book on the case that I have read. This will answer some of your questions and raise many more. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2021 9:16:03 GMT -5
Hello, new guy here. I finished reading Lindbergh by a. Scott Berg and Rise and Fall of Charles Lindbergh by Candance Fleming . Those two books left me with questions. I see C.A.L. as a man of science who would fix his baby boy if he had disabilities (rickets) not kill him. My Hauptmann question is this: how did he know what room the babys crib was in and how did he know when the Lindberghs would be there?. I'm sorry if this has been discussed but I was unable to find it. Nice to be here. I agree with Sherlock that if you haven't read a book about the actual case yet then " The Case That Never Dies" should be the first one you pick up. But be warned: It won't be your last if you do! As to your question there were/are several different beliefs. I am going to list a few off the top of my head so there may be more considerations I may have omitted. There are enough people here with a wealth of knowledge who could fill in the gaps if need be and I hope they do. 1. Inside Job.
Police originally believed there was an Insider who was either directly involved or supplied information to those that were. The scene looked staged. It seemed many of the things that had to have occurred was unlikely.
This position could splinter out in just about every direction. Anyone or everyone in the house could potentially be involved. Information came out which heightened these suspicions. Trooper Kelly was said to have heard Lindbergh telling Gow to, in essence, keep quiet. Once confronted by the Governor's investigator about this he did not refute it. Lindbergh prevented police from pursuing the inside job theory. Mrs. Morrow publicly announced to the press that she believed it was an inside job. Garsson's investigation revealed that Lindbergh had twice hidden the child in a closet and pretended he had been kidnapped, and once pressed Gow shouted out "Lindbergh promised I wouldn't be touched!". Garsson was absolutely convinced it was an inside job. As Whateley died in the hospital, he was telling people it was an inside job. So there's a lot of smoke here on this end.
2. Local Involvement.
Police also considered a local or someone who was familiar with the house, like someone who worked on its construction, was involved.
3. Observation.
One theory was that people were surveilling the home from a concealed vantage point with binoculars on several nights in a row. There observing the routine via an unshuttered windows. Once Hauptmann was arrested, they claimed his method was to drive down from the Bronx on several nights to perform this task by himself. Of course the surveillance should have confirmed the family wouldn't be there that night and the presence of the dog etc. etc. It also necessitated the need for the footprint evidence of two people to now become just one. So it opens up an even a bigger can of worms.
4. Blind Luck.
Many who believe Hauptmann was involved but can't get around the facts simply draw this conclusion as the only one that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Dec 28, 2021 11:43:05 GMT -5
To me it reeks of inside help. If he was hiding to observe what night would work he would have to drag that ladder with him every time. To stash it near by might be too risky and to easy to be found.And sooner or later his car would be spotted and investigated. My other issue is a dog that doesn't bark while the crime was being committed . Thanks for all your patience and answering my amateurish questions.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 28, 2021 12:21:37 GMT -5
To me it reeks of inside help. If he was hiding to observe what night would work he would have to drag that ladder with him every time. To stash it near by might be too risky and to easy to be found.And sooner or later his car would be spotted and investigated. My other issue is a dog that doesn't bark while the crime was being committed . Thanks for all your patience and answering my amateurish questions. Definitely agree with others who said "The Case that Never Dies" is the best option to get started. Make sure you get the 2012 edition with the new afterward. I'll add that Lindbergh's behavior for the entire case was odd, at best. The problem is that he was such a powerful figure at the time nobody could question him. He blew off a major event the night of the kidnapping, with his whereabouts unknown most of the day - yet nobody bothered to question him why on the night of his son's kidnapping he went MIA. He left the dog which usually stayed beneath the crib back at the family's other residence. During the times he was supposedly out "looking" for his son, he played cards and cruel practical jokes. Instead of trusting the police to do their job, he took over the investigation and prevented them from really doing anything, instead choosing to work with shady underworld characters. Many officers at the time knew something was amiss. At the morgue, upon seeing the corpse of his son, he was unemotional and asked for a "meat slicer" to cut into the baby and inspect his teeth. This was not the hero Lindbergh which the press so cultivated. The real Lindbergh was something else all together. He deeply believed in Eugenics and Charlie's condition was likely too problematic to deal with. To him, the idea that the public could know such a perfect example of the human race (which he believed himself to be), could have a crippled child was unfathomable. It should also be noted that this was a different era in that kidnappings were quite common, and in Europe, wealthy families would occasionally stage kidnappings to rid themselves of unwanted offspring secretly. So much so that Scotland Yard's first query when consulted on the case was asking if the police had checked on the health of the baby, as the parents may have wanted it "destroyed" due to a health condition.
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Dec 28, 2021 15:27:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the information
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2021 8:34:34 GMT -5
To me it reeks of inside help. If he was hiding to observe what night would work he would have to drag that ladder with him every time. To stash it near by might be too risky and to easy to be found.And sooner or later his car would be spotted and investigated. My other issue is a dog that doesn't bark while the crime was being committed . Thanks for all your patience and answering my amateurish questions. Definitely agree with others who said "The Case that Never Dies" is the best option to get started. Make sure you get the 2012 edition with the new afterward. I'll add that Lindbergh's behavior for the entire case was odd, at best. The problem is that he was such a powerful figure at the time nobody could question him. He blew off a major event the night of the kidnapping, with his whereabouts unknown most of the day - yet nobody bothered to question him why on the night of his son's kidnapping he went MIA. He left the dog which usually stayed beneath the crib back at the family's other residence. During the times he was supposedly out "looking" for his son, he played cards and cruel practical jokes. Instead of trusting the police to do their job, he took over the investigation and prevented them from really doing anything, instead choosing to work with shady underworld characters. Many officers at the time knew something was amiss. At the morgue, upon seeing the corpse of his son, he was unemotional and asked for a "meat slicer" to cut into the baby and inspect his teeth. This was not the hero Lindbergh which the press so cultivated. The real Lindbergh was something else all together. He deeply believed in Eugenics and Charlie's condition was likely too problematic to deal with. To him, the idea that the public could know such a perfect example of the human race (which he believed himself to be), could have a crippled child was unfathomable. It should also be noted that this was a different era in that kidnappings were quite common, and in Europe, wealthy families would occasionally stage kidnappings to rid themselves of unwanted offspring secretly. So much so that Scotland Yard's first query when consulted on the case was asking if the police had checked on the health of the baby, as the parents may have wanted it "destroyed" due to a health condition. 1971firebird, unless you'd like to be gradually indoctrinated into the belief structure that Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping and murder of his son through a lot of subtle inference and innuendo, I would not recommend "The Case That Never Dies" as a first read, especially the edition with the afterward. It's an extremely well researched book, but you will definitely need more of a general case background to be able to continue asking the same kinds of questions that precipitated Dr. Gardner's own findings and conclusions, and in turn challenging them. If you're looking for a truly unbiased approach to the case first up, try Mark Falzini's "New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial." Not a lengthy read and therefore lacks some of the detail you will eventually want to discover more of, but it's easily digestible and will set you off on an even keel without a lot of needless detail at first. It also presents great case-related images for an important visual perspective of times surrounding the "Crime of the Century." And you may just discover this crime was actually a much simpler and more straightforward event than is generally made out to be here on this discussion board.
|
|
|
Post by firebird on Dec 29, 2021 9:51:25 GMT -5
Thank you Joe. I'm amazed at the number of books on the subject, almost overwhelming , web sites too.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Dec 29, 2021 15:32:09 GMT -5
To add a lighter note at this Festive Season: if you were casting a film of the Lindbergh case who would you have playing the major roles? Choose stars from the past or present. Here’s my choice:
Charles Lindbergh: Clint Eastwood Richard Hauptmann: Montgomery Clift Ed Reilly: W. C. Fields Schwarzkopf: Oliver Hardy Betty Gow: Bette Davis Dr Condon: Orson Welles Willentz: Edward G Robinson Whatley: Slim Somerville
Wishing everyone a Healthy New Year in 2022.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 29, 2021 17:32:37 GMT -5
Great Selection: i would nominate Basil Rathbone as Isidor Fisch, Elizabeth Taylor as Violet Sharpe, and (the young) Sam Waterston as Charles Henry Ellerson.
A happy and safe New Year to all: Jeanne
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2021 17:35:19 GMT -5
To add a lighter note at this Festive Season: if you were casting a film of the Lindbergh case who would you have playing the major roles? Choose stars from the past or present. Here’s my choice: Charles Lindbergh: Clint Eastwood Richard Hauptmann: Montgomery Clift Ed Reilly: W. C. Fields Schwarzkopf: Oliver Hardy Betty Gow: Bette Davis Dr Condon: Orson Welles Willentz: Edward G Robinson Whatley: Slim Somerville Wishing everyone a Healthy New Year in 2022. Sherlock Great post Sherlock, and I'd really have to think about the other players. I have to think though only one actor could possibly play Richard Hauptmann for both appearance, mannerisms and speech: A younger Ralph Fiennes would have killed it! BTW, the character portrayals for "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case", (1976) directed by Buzz Kulik and starring Anthony Hopkins, were outstanding. Happy New Year to All!
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 29, 2021 18:00:55 GMT -5
To add a lighter note at this Festive Season: if you were casting a film of the Lindbergh case who would you have playing the major roles? Choose stars from the past or present. Here’s my choice: Charles Lindbergh: Clint Eastwood Richard Hauptmann: Montgomery Clift Ed Reilly: W. C. Fields Schwarzkopf: Oliver Hardy Betty Gow: Bette Davis Dr Condon: Orson Welles Willentz: Edward G Robinson Whatley: Slim Somerville Wishing everyone a Healthy New Year in 2022. Sherlock Great post Sherlock, and I'd really have to think about the other players. I have to think though only one actor could possibly play Richard Hauptmann for both appearance, mannerisms and speech: A younger Ralph Fiennes would have killed it! <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> BTW, the character portrayals for "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case", (1976) directed by Buzz Kulik and starring Anthony Hopkins, were outstanding. Happy New Year to All! Sidney Greenstreet for Jafsie and Alfred Hitchcock for Reilly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2021 18:11:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Dec 29, 2021 18:12:57 GMT -5
On second thought--Basil Rathbone is too tall to be Isidor Fisch. So I withdraw his name and nominate Eddie Cantor.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 29, 2021 22:28:10 GMT -5
Ooh, I love this stuff. Something like, suppose there was no original 'Star Trek' series, and you substituted it for 'The Next Generation', transplanting that into the 1960s with those characters and stories: You could have Rex Harrison as Picard, William Shatner as Riker, Montgomery Clift as Data, with special appearances by George Sanders as Q... I'm pretty good at this game, but I'd have to think on who could play what roles in the LKC, which would depend on the decade/general time-period when the faux-movie would've been made. I don't know about Ralph Fiennes as Hauptmann, though. I mean, since when did he ever play a dark, creepy, villainous German--? Oh, wait... Yeah, no, I take that back; he'd be perfect.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 29, 2021 23:14:31 GMT -5
Healthy and Happy New Year to All!
And who is starring as Anne Lindbergh? And what is her part if the scenario reflects the story as an inside job, or even more as "CAL did it"? Is she totally unaware of what really happened?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 30, 2021 1:58:55 GMT -5
Not sure. Working in theater, I’d want to tell the story in a different way than it’s been told, though not necessarily pushing one theory or another. If we were to use the ‘CAL did it’ theory, art would imitate life: Anne Lindbergh would know CAL Jr. was being removed from the house and taken somewhere, but would be kept in the dark about what was going to ultimately happen to him and what the endgame actually was. Either way, for now, say the film was made in the mid 1990s:
Lindbergh - Aiden Quinn Hauptmann - Ralph Fiennes Condon - Charlton Heston Anne Lindbergh - Embeth Davitz Gow - Emily Watson Fisch - Steve Buscemi Reilly - Albert Finney Wilentz - David Paymer (played the role in the HBO film ‘Crime of the Century’) Schwarzkopf - JT Walsh (same as above) Sharp - Olivia Colman Anna Hauptmann - Emma Thompson The Whateleys - Derek Jacobi and Helen Mirren Judge Trenchard - Martin Landau
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Dec 30, 2021 3:36:29 GMT -5
Condon - Nigel Bruce Charles - Clint Eastwood Anne - June Allyson Richard - Richard Widmark Anna - Angela Lansbury Betty - Jean Harlow Isidor - Peter Lorre For some comic relief O'Reilly - Oliver Hardy Wilentz - Stan Laurel
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Dec 30, 2021 8:16:51 GMT -5
To add a lighter note at this Festive Season: if you were casting a film of the Lindbergh case who would you have playing the major roles? Choose stars from the past or present. Here’s my choice: Charles Lindbergh: Clint Eastwood Richard Hauptmann: Montgomery Clift Ed Reilly: W. C. Fields Schwarzkopf: Oliver Hardy Betty Gow: Bette Davis Dr Condon: Orson Welles Willentz: Edward G Robinson Whatley: Slim Somerville Wishing everyone a Healthy New Year in 2022. Sherlock Sherlock I agree with all the casting except for Betty Gow. Joan Crawford would be a better fit.
|
|