View Full Version : Bruno Hauptman framed re: Lindbergh kidnapping?

11-27-2011, 10:23 AM
Just saw the Clint Eastwood movie 'J. Edgar.' I found it interesting, if talky, slow-paced, and overly long.

The Lindbergh kidnapping case plays a key role in the movie, through flashbacks and Hoover's explaining the case to an in-house FBI writer, who was preparing the 'FBI Story' using the Director's recollections.

Eastwood's script has the G-men who were taking the dictation notes pushing back on Hoover as to Hauptman's guilt, with the benefit of hindsight and awareness of the several high profile persons who had publicly questioned his guilt, including Amelia Earheart, Eleanor Roosevelt, a Governor of NJ, and others.

Interested, I looked around for a discussion of this controversy, and found this discussion. (http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/duggan.pdf)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE HAUPTMANN CASE

1. LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Hauptmann had to die for kidnaping
the most famous baby in the world. However, kidnaping was not a
capital offense in New Jersey in 1932 (nor in New York). But felony
murder was a capital offense. So far so good. But, causing a death in
the course of committing a kidnaping was not a felony murder offense
in New Jersey. So far so bad. But, causing a death in the course of
committing a burglary was a felony murder offense. So far so good.
But, unlawful entry with the intent to commit a kidnaping was not a
burglary in New Jersey. So far so bad. But, unlawful entry with the
intent to commit a larceny was a burglary and, if someone died in the
course of the burglary–that would be felony murder, a capital offense.
So far so good. But what was the larceny in the Lindbergh case? Why
stealing the baby’s night suit! Well true, the baby happened to be in
the night suit at the time, but that was legally irrelevant to the charge.

Hauptmann would die based on the legal theory that he broke into
the Lindbergh Estate to steal a pair of pajamas. That was the legal
theory that supported the capital murder charge in the indictment.
Of course, that small technicality got buried in the heat of the trial, as did the fact that the sleep suit was mailed back two weeks after the
kidnapping. It is inconceivable that the New Jersey Legislature, in not
making kidnaping a capital offense or making kidnaping a predicate
crime for burglary, intended to leave open a backdoor theory that
stealing the clothes that a kidnap victim was wearing would support a
capital charge if the victim accidentally died. Was it the Legislature’s
intent that the death penalty could be imposed on such pleading
legerdemain? To paraphrase Lincoln, this legal theory was,“....as thin as
a broth made from the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.”2</div></div>

This is only the start of a long list of problems with the trial, which see in the linked article.

Then there's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does it seem that every time the government tells us
that a “lone wolf” commits a famous crime it seals the evidence and
wants us to take it on faith that it has told us the truth. Much of the
controversy in the Kennedy assassination was created by hiding the
facts from the public for decades. This allowed conspiracy theorists
to make mole hills of discrepancy into mountains of doubt. The
Lindbergh case took a similar path. The investigative records were
sealed and not open to the public for almost fifty years. For what
possible reason could that be? It would now be possible to DNA
test the wood in rail 16 with the remaining board from Hauptmann’s
attic. It would also be possible to DNA test the saliva preserved in
the glue of the ransom envelopes and the glue on the envelopes in
which Hauptmann sent letters to the Governor. Requests that these
tests be done have been made to New Jersey officials and they have
refused. Now why is that? </div></div>

11-27-2011, 01:38 PM

11-27-2011, 03:21 PM
Must have missed the lengthy discussion of this topic when it occurred on this board.

Or perhaps it happened on the other board?

Please feel free to ignore the thread! Thank you.

11-27-2011, 03:22 PM
All know that bruno woz unfairly trialed and murdered.
But i must look into the latest story when i hav time.

11-27-2011, 03:26 PM
I'm waiting to hear how Bush did it.

11-27-2011, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm waiting to hear how Bush did it. </div></div>

Good, now stand in the corner and wait. The adults are talking. St.

11-27-2011, 05:24 PM
There have been many rulings from the past reviewed and reversed upon the concerted efforts of their family members.

Short and Kimmel, the Army and Navy commanders at the scene at Pearl Harbor that day that will live in infamy come to mind. Short and Kimmel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sag2upe7KUA)

I completely understand that during the lifetime, and for a time afterwards, of J. Edgar Hoover and various law enforcement and the judge, etc., this would be kept from correction, because of their loss of face or worse, revelation of corruption in the system at large.

But I'd like to see such apparently blatant miscarriages of justice corrected for history, at whatever late remove.