NJ - Lindbergh baby kidnapping, East Amwell Township, 1 March 1932

http://blog.nj.com/hunterdon/lindbergh_trial/

The Lindbergh Case: 'Cemetery John' gets $50,000
Posted by By Curtis Leeds April 01, 2007 7:05AM
Categories: Lindbergh Trial
"I accept. Money is ready."

With those words, Bronx eccentric John F. Condon - codenamed "Jafsie"¨ - told "Cemetery John" that the Lindberghs had assembled $70,000 in cash to ransom their 20-month-old son.

The message was printed in two New York City newspapers.

The Lindberghs had reason to trust that Dr. Condon's contact could arrange the return of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. After all, notes thought to come from either "John" or his associates had used the same strange tell-tale signature as the note left in the nursery on the day of the toddler's disappearance.

It was 75 years ago - March 31, 1932 - and 30 days had passed since the crime of the century in East Amwell Township. Charles and Anne Lindbergh had thrilled the world with their exploits, including his first-ever solo crossing of the Atlantic in 1927, and their joint exploration of air routes that would be adopted by the nascent airline industry. Now the world watched and waited for news about "The Eaglet," son of the great Lindbergh, whom the press called "The Lone Eagle."

If the Lindberghs' fame had inspired those responsible for the child's disappearance, it inspired others to hatch ransom schemes.

- There was John Hughes Curtis, a Norfolk boat builder, who claimed to be in touch with a gang that had the child. He'd eventually be convicted of obstructing justice and fined $1,000.

- There was Gaston Means, a former FBI agent who worked both sides of the law. He claimed the kidnappers had let him hold the toddler. He swindled $104,000 from a Washington, D.C. socialite after convincing her he could arrange the Eaglet's return. He'd be convicted of larceny and would die in prison.

It would be Jafsie who actually paid the money that would ultimately bring the arrest of Bruno Hauptmann. But it nearly didn't happen.

Wow, 75 years...

This one always gets my heart. It took me a few times to read the story the first time, this was always a confusing one with so many schemes and players.
The photo of little Charles' remains is one that haunts me.

It was always the little things about this case that brought it home. When you think of something so long ago, sometimes it seems so far from our hearts. From a time where humans were stronger, and men were men and did not cry.
Thinking of a baby having a cold. I still baby my son, at 2.5, when he has a cold. How can you not? He is my baby and he is suffering. I cradle him in my arms and sleep holding him propped up a little better with the vaporizer going so he can sleep a little better. He is always more tired and a bit listless.
It's the little things, imaging poor baby Charles being sick and longing for his warm bed and mommy.
The only good part about the whole thing is that Charles was not tortured during the whole time he was missing.

It's a shame that when we go back that far and think about kidnappings, one and only one stands out. Look at last week or last month, completely different.

My great grandfather was one of the investigators on this case. Unfortunately, he was long dad when I was born and his daughter, my grandmother, died when I was only 2 years old, so I never had the chance to hear stories about his participation. All I know is that he was a T-Man (Treasury Agent), and his jab was to track counterfeiters, extortionists, etc. So I am guessing that he worked on tracking the ransom.

As a child in the 70s, I remember watching a very good TV movie about this case. It starred a young Anthony Hopkins as Bruno. I remember being riveted by the whole story. I would love for this movie to be shown again.

Crime of the century was produced in the late 90s......I found it to be a very good movie about the case.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115974/

okay, i don't know if this guy is really charles lindbergh's son but i was reading this and something jumped out at me.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=3949947

Charles Lindbergh, Jr.: "Historians have established his belief in Aryan purity, and I wasn't perfect."

i was raised in nj. my parents and grandparents lived there during the lindbergh case. when i was about 14 we were talking about the case and i remember my grandmom stating that the rumour was that lindbergh's (the father) mother had arranged for the kidnapping. the reason being something was wrong with the child and she couldn't have an imperfect grandchild. i'm not saying this was true. but i find it strange, she said that back when i was 14, years before this article was written. i'm 52 now. also my grandmom wasn't one to gossip over the fence. as a matter of fact that statement was all she would say about it. when questioned she wouldn't say anything more.

I tried to read up on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and I didn't think the baby found in the field was him. I think they told CL to say it was for closure and I think he lied when he testified he heard the guys voice.

same here i also think bruno was a fall guy made easier by his lack of understanding english

I need to make this case a point of study. It is obviously a hallmark case, and deserves more attention than I have previiously given it. From my limited 'initial impression', I have to say that Bruno was a fall guy and not the perp at all. Where he got the money.....don't know. I sure wish today's technology had been alive and well back then!!!!

This case has always fascinated me. I read that Charles Lindbergh used to think it was great fun to hide the baby from his wife and their nanny. I've often thought that Charles had taken the baby from the bedroom via a ladder, and either lost his grip or somehow dropped or accidently killed his son while in the midst of one of his pranks, and set out to make it look like the baby had been abducted. As is the usual case when a parent is involved, the baby was found close to home.

Yep, the baby was found less than a mile from the home. Lindbergh immediately had him cremated, and shortly he and his wife gave their home to charity and moved away.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?id=54200&action=tdihArticleCategory

Here's an article from someone claiming they looked into this case, and that Bruno Hauptmann was railroaded.
http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/scaduto nymag.pdf

edited to add this article says the baby was found 4 miles from the home. I wonder which is correct?

from what i remember my mom and grandmom saying and from reading...bruno said that the box the money was in was left by a friend of his. the friend went back overseas and was never heard of again. my mom use to say that it was her opinion that guy was involved.

Fascinating case. The facts are pretty indisputable that Bruno Hauptman was involved in the kidnapping.

However, the baby's death might very well have been accidental. Carrying a baby out of a window, on a ladder, it's very conceivable (Occam's Razor) that the child fell and suffered a fatal head injury.

The idea that someone would kidnap a baby from a famous person would be far more believable in the days when just people--not electronics--guarded a child.

I've read at least one book and seen several documentaries about this case, and I think Bruno Hauptmann was involved somehow. Whether he acted alone is another issue.

The one piece of evidence that truly made me believe he was involved was a match of the wood in the ladder used in the kidnapping with missing wood from his attic. I don't remember the details, but the NJ State Police (?) investigated where the wood came from (NC I think), and how the grains or grooves matched up. Sorry I can't be more specific, but the two types of wood were compared side by side and there was no question that they were the same. Hard to blame that on a government conspiracy.

I have a feeling that much of the "conspiracy" suggested is nothing more than human beings trying to cover up human errors after the fact. No-one wants to appear negligent or worse, involved somehow.

I also believe that the legal and judicial folks involved were willing to do anything to make the charges against Hauptmann stick. They were willing to frame a guilty man. Given Lindburgh's hero status at the time, it's not surprising.

I've seen the wood study too, and it looked convincing to me, but am reading an article by a person who makes a very good case that Bruno Hauptmann was working on the day the Lindbergh baby disappeared. Payroll sheets existed that showed he was working. His boss said he was working but the police and DA suppressed that evidence. That evidence still exists.

I'll have to see what I can turn up on the ladder issue again. It's been a few years.

I haven't looked into this case in years, but I had a high school teacher who was really into it. He pointed out that a child approximately the same age and description was missing from a local orphanage at the same time that the Lindbergh baby disappeared. I wish I could ask him about it, but he's retired and moved away. I'm going to have to look into that part of the story and see if I can find anything online. He was so convinced that the baby found was not the "Eaglet."

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Cases-That-Haunt-Us-ebook/dp/B000FBJGTA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245765077&sr=8-2"]Amazon.com: The Cases That Haunt Us eBook: Mark Olshaker: Kindle Store[/ame]


This was an EXCELLENT book that I read about this case, and others, from JeanBenet to the Zodiac to Jack the Ripper. The guy that cowrote it was hired by the prosecution in the JeanBenet case to try to prove the family's guilt and he says he believes that the family is innocent. Anyway, I know that's off topic.

With regards to the Lindbergh baby, he details a lot of this case and it is bizzare. I just caulked it up at the time to the fact that I wasn't alive back then and didnt' understand how people operated. he has maps, photos etc in the book.

Should be required reading for all WSers cause it covers SO many of the famous cases that probably got us all interested in crime. Great book.

I have always thought that the parents had something to do with this in some way. I have read the story and watched the biography on it and it didnt add up. It would be great if they could find out for sure.

i was reading a website on this, a message board and from the sounds of it some of the evidence had/has disappeared.

i know this is an old case and considered solved. i also know i brought it up from posts from the past. but as others this case has always interested me, perhaps because it was so close to home. even though i wasn't even thought of then. lol we use to have to read about it in class. part of the history of nj i guess.

It's definitely an odd case. Are there any theories that point to Charles and Bruno being linked? Because I've never seen such convincing handwriting analysis than I do with Bruno and the ransom note.

For those interested, here’s a NOVA program done on the case. My guess, a few years ago.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOc_gztk2E8"]PBS Nova Who Killed Lindbergh's Baby 480p SD XVID - YouTube[/ame]

former central time said:

For those interested, here’s a NOVA program done on the case. My guess, a few years ago.

PBS Nova Who Killed Lindbergh's Baby 480p SD XVID - YouTube

Click to expand...

That is a recent NOVA episode.