Friday, November 28, 2014

Case Study

Title: The Lindbergh Case: A Look Back to the Future


What:
·         Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., 20-month-old son of the famous aviator and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was kidnapped about 9:00 p.m., on March 1, 1932, from the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey.

Who:
·         Suspect: Bruno Richard Hauptmann
·         Victim: Charles Augustus Lindbergh
When/Where:
·         About 9:00 p.m., on March 1, 1932
·         From the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home near Hopewell, New Jersey.
Evidence:
·         The written ransom note might be a rich source of evidence.
·         Lettered signature on an auto registration card copied at the motor vehicle bureau.
·         Hauptmann's fingerprints were not on the wood, even in places that the man who made the ladder would have had to touch.
·         Remains of Lindbergh baby as discovered near Hopewell
·         Remains of Lindbergh baby as discovered near Hopewell, with insets: undershirt found on remains, comparison of dimpled chin, enlarged photo of turned-in toes
·         Garment found on corpse of Lindbergh baby in comparison with clean underpants
·         Undershirt found on corpse of Lindbergh baby in comparison with clean undershirt
·         Lindbergh residence, Hopewell - abduct ladder alongside nursery window
·         Lindbergh residence, Hopewell - nursery window on second floor with one shutter closed
·         Montage of abduct-cognate posters and photos:
·         Handwritten police message re abducting
·         Telegram re-abducting
·         Reward poster listing Lindbergh ransom mazuma serial numbers
·         Abduct poster
·         Hauptmann at tribulation
·         Enlargement of serial number of ransom bill traced to Hauptmann
·         State Police list of malefactions for which Hauptmann's dactylograms were taken
·         Hauptmann's Dodge; three photos of $10 gold certificate (Lindbergh ransom mazuma) on which Hauptmann's license plate number was indited by gas station attendant
·         Handwriting samples of Hauptmann compared to ransom notes
·         First and second ransom notes
·         Hauptmann attic, Bronx - space from which ladder rail #16 was shown to have been abstracted
·         Hauptmann attic, Bronx - ladder rail #16 in place on attic floor
·         Comparison of wood grain in ladder rail #16 with attic floorboard, face and culminate grain
·         Ladder rail #16 in Hauptmann attic exhibiting matching nail apertures
·         Hauptmann attic, Bronx - close up of ladder rail #16 in place on attic floor
·         Comparison of wood grain in ladder rail #16 and attic floorboard, with overlay exhibiting artisti's rendering of missing piece
·         Comparison of wood grain in ladder rail #16 with attic floorboard
·         Diagram of milling machine for ladder lumber
·         Diagram of milling machine cutter head for ladder lumber
·         Comparison of milling marks in ladder rail #13 with lumber from National Lumber & Millwork Co., New York
·         Chisel found outside Lindbergh residence and chisel from set belonging to Hauptmann
·         Wood plane belonging to Hauptmann; comparison of plane markings in ladder rails and rungs
·         Closet in Hauptmann residence in which address and telephone number of J. F. Condon were found indited on wall
Outcome:
·         In the 1930's, August Vollmer, John Wigmore, and others wrought strenuously to get the expert into court. Seventy years later, judges should be throwing a moiety of them out. In the field of scientific document examination, the graphologists are no longer at the gate, they're in the courthouse. In America, everyone has a right to opine, but not in court. If everyone is an expert, no one is.

·         Albert S. Osborn verbalized it first; judges have to find a way to identify the phonies. But because these charlatans have become such clever impersonators, it's not facile. They have engendered fictitiously unauthentic diplomas, spurious journals, fraudulent professional organizations and counterfeit resumes. They're dug in, and it's going to take extreme quantifications to blast them out. If judges don't take responsibility for this task, little will transmute. Jurors are no longer capable of spotting the frauds. In fact, one way to eschew jury obligation is to exhibit a rational mind and erudition of science.

·         Merely sounding the charlatan alarm is not enough. Without a profound vicissitude in the way experts are eligible for court, and the way people cerebrate, juries will be unable to consistently agonize the truth. The only thing forensic scientists can do is to perpetuate consummating their day-to-day assignments with veracity and integrity. Albert S. Osborn, who mistakenly thought that the Lindbergh tribulation had ushered in an era of forensic enlightenment, would expect nothing less.

Reflections:
            It seems that Hauptman's guilt or innocence can now be definitively proven, if the police picked up the handkerchief that Cemetery John discarded on the night of the payoff. Lindburg says, “As he passed the car, he covered his face with the handkerchief and blew his nose so loudly that it could be distinctly heard across the street... he removed the handkerchief and with a quick motion threw it down with his left hand into an open lot opposite the florist's shop.”  The DNA should still be there. What the media of the depression era hailed as "the crime of the century" began on the night of 1 March 1932, when someone abducted Charles Lindbergh Jr., twenty-month old son of aviator hero Charles A. Lindbergh, from his New Jersey country home. A month later, the Lindbergh family paid $50,000 in ransom through an intermediary, but the baby, whose body was finally found in May, was not returned.
            In response, Congress passed the Lindbergh Kidnapping Law of 1932, which made it a federal crime to take a kidnap victim across state lines. Two years later, police arrested a German-born carpenter, Bruno Hauptmann. A New York City tabloid hired the flamboyant attorney Edward J. Reilly to represent Hauptmann, whose 1935 trial produced a six-week media spectacle. Though he called more than 150 witnesses, including Hauptmann himself, Reilly could not shake crucial evidence against his client, including about $14,000 in traceable ransom bills in his possession and a ladder (used in the kidnapping) that had been repaired with a board from his house. Rebuffing all entreaties to confess, Hauptmann insisted that a now-deceased friend had given him the money. Convicted in February 1935, Hauptmann was executed on 3 April 1936. Until her own death in 1994, his widow Anna Hauptmann championed his cause. Ironically, as Lindbergh's reputation suffered, in part because of his pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic stances during the late 1930s, thinly documented arguments for Hauptmann's innocence gained currency.

Work Cited

Fisher, Jim. The Lindbergh Case: A Look Back to the Future. 9 January 2008. 24 November 2014 <jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/s8243_1.html>.



No comments:

Post a Comment