Talk:Lindbergh kidnapping

Blood libel

Given that Lindbergh is commonly thought to have been anti-semitic, isn't it possible that he interpreted the kidnapping as a form of medieval blood libel ? Was he already anti-semitic by the time of the kidnapping, or did he become even more anti-Jewish after the crime occured ? ADM (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Charles Lindbergh was anti-Semitic during the time of his son's kidnapping. He and his wife were friends with, among others, the (Jewish) Guggenheims, and while they moved in wealthy and elite circles there's nothing in their conduct to suggest that they were anti-Jewish.

Later on, Lindbgergh, an admirer of German air power, visited Nazi Germany, praised the Luftwaffe and accepted a medal from Herman Goering. Starting in 1939 he became a vigorous isolationist and was vocal in his criticism of American Jews who supported America's getting involved in the European war. A stubborn, opinionated man, he never apologized for his actions during that period, and he later served his country bravely as a flier in the Pacific theater.

A complex man by any standards, Lindbergh doubtless had his prejudices and fixed beliefs, however from having studied him and his life my sense of him is that while deeply flawed in many respects he was not a hateful man.

John B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegonus (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Being stupidly stubborn could never be an advantage. You can see clearly he never learned by experience. He never tought to admit his mistakes. His erratic behaviour spoiled all the investigation. He was to proud of himself to refuse from nazi's medal. That's immature and silly. Period. And also teaches us that all this overrated "heroes" and footballers and celebrities are not even clever enough to appraise their own abilities. Everybody treat them as "special" so they believe in it. We shouldn't. I feel sorry for Hauptmann and Sharp. They are victims of elite's ego and autorithies' fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.16.82.32 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

I find the writing style and language of this article (e.g. cahoots, equivocal, doldrums) unusual for modern English. Would not be surprised if much of it has been lifted from a book or similar 78.53.230.193 (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which book? The words are not antiquated, and there are still living people who talk and write that way. Perhaps the article was written by an older person. Your own grammar leaves something to be desired. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Morrow

Ambiguous link to Dwight Morrow in the 'See Also' section. can someone please explain why there is a link to Dwight Morrow who died 2 years before the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred ? when you visit the link there seems to be no correlation between the two pages. this issue isnt confined to this page. is it usual practice to link unrelated information ? chris mcmullen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.12.147 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a connection and a very strong one at that. As the Dwight Morrow article details, he is the father of Anne Morrow Lindbergh. Anne Morrow Lindbergh was the wife of Charles Lindbergh and the mother of the kidnapped Lindbergh baby. In other words, Dwight Morrow was the kidnapped baby's maternal grandfather. This is the reason that the article is listed in the "See also" section. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Also, he died 5 months before the kidnapping, not 2 years before. This may be a significant factor in the kidnapping. Akld guy (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity

The problem with this article is there are so many contradictory things that need to be included. For instance, the family doctor at first denied the baby was the Lindbergh baby, then he later said it was, then denied it again. So if you're going to source it you can easily pick and find a credible source depending on which date you use. Same for anything Jafsie said. He constantly switched sides about whether or not anything was true. He clearly wanted attention and would say whatever to get it. But this article is definately slanted. All the evidence brought against Bruno could've just as easily been planted by cops desperate to make a conviction. I'm not saying it was, but if you're gonna write an article don't include something as fact without explaining WHY it is fact and also presenting the rebuttle of the evidence. For every piece of evidence against Bruno there are at least two way if not a lot more, of explaining it away. The only thing for certain is that Bruno is guilty of having ransom money 99.17.104.162 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Vera Lynne

Agreed, and you could fix it yourself, but all the contradictory evidence has to be properly researched and cited. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Man claiming to be Charles A. Lindbergh

I just thought I'd throw this out there. I don't know if it can be incorporated into the article, but I thought it was interesting. http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_14383573?source=most_viewed Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That link wrought some minor havoc with my PC. In any case, I recall a People Magazine article some years ago about a guy claiming to be the Lindbergh baby. Don't recall his name. However, the Lindbergh baby's body was found in a shallow grave not far from the Lindbergh home not long after the crime, and typically these guys won't submit to DNA tests since it would prove that they're humbugs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Theory

I personally don't support this, but I've heard it said that the baby was dropped on its head and killed when he was kidnapped, which is supposedly supported by the body being found close to the home and the depressions outside the windows. Is this at least theorized, or just nonsense? --75.173.18.129 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the person I heard it from (my father) saw me typing and said that the perpetrators (plural) confessed about it when they were in jail, and said to look it up on Wikipedia. :S --75.173.18.129 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I too thought about this. The article mentions nothing about how or why the baby was killed. There have to have been theories at least...--Threedots dead (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

J. J. Faulkner

This article contains many flat that contradict well-established sources. In such a case, there really is a need for citation. For example, in regard to the large deposit of ransom Gold Certificates, the FBI's website states "One was found bearing the name and address of "J.J. Faulkner, 537 West 149th Street," and had marked thereon "gold certificates," "$10 and $20" in the amount of $2,980. Despite extensive investigation, this depositor was never located."(http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/lindber/lindbernew.htm)

Now surely, one can challenge the accuracy of the FBI's claims but one should cite the evidence, not simply assert a differing view. --Rrawson (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)RBR

thats exactly what i was thinking when i was reading all of this. it makes sense. stole the baby, dropped it doing down the ladder, got nervous, threw the baby in a ditch as they were leaving.. and pretended that the baby was still alive. makes sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.12.41 (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proceeding

I think the article would be improved immeasurably if additional constructions of the form, Person X then proceeded to do such-and-such were sprinkled throughout. EEng (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The page was recently vandalized

I have been using this page over the last few weeks, and some of the information was recently changed. In one section, it says that the child was raped when he wasn't. John Condon's name was also changed in one section. I don't know enough about this topic to correct it myself, but if someone does, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfbullington (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• It should be fixed, let me know if I missed anything. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Under the "Wanted" poster where the date of birth, death, etc. is listed, his cause of death says "raped to death". Bettybrown922 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

John Condon's name in the title of the section is still given as "John Condom." Like OP, I don't know anything about the topic and don't want to correct it myself, but it seems that is probably wrong. Bob the ducq (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindbergh kidnapping in film

The Lindbergh kidnapping was also the basis for the kidnapping depicted in "Raising Arizona," a film by the Coen brothers.

Cheers,

24.196.131.146 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Kristy, 8/3/2011

Another "In TV".

In an episode of "JAG", Harmon Rabb asks a sarcastic rhetorical question: "are they re-opening the Lindburgh kidnapping case?". Old_Wombat (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ransom note image

There is a color image of the ransom note on this page and it appears to be authentic given this FBI page. Is there any reason why we can't include this image in this article? Is it a copyright issue? --beefyt (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

John F. Condon

I'm thinking that the article on John F. Condon is a match for the one mentioned in this article - from news searches we can see that both men taught/coached at Fordham. – Connormah (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Lindbergh claimed...

The second sentence says, "Lindbergh claimed his 20-month-old toddler was abducted from his family home...on the evening of March 1, 1932." As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article to refute this "claim". It seems to be an established fact. It should simply say "The 20-month-old toddler was abducted from the Lindbergh family home..." 86.41.46.253 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I made the edit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Who knows. They could have lied. Science methods were not precise long ago. No possible to check. They could say whatewer they wanted.

Some researchers suggest Lindberg to be in charge himself or smb from the family. That could be unintentional murder. There also were rumours about baby's health - thay say the child was retarded physically. That's why founded body were not similar to Charlie's. The height of found body didn't match with one declared on the wanted poster. That's why nobody knows for sure if the body was Charlie's and even if it was, nobody knows whodunit and why. I don't buy Bruno-the-killer. I buy poor qualified work of police which kissed the a** of Mr. Linberg and let him make decisions instead of them. His "investigation" screwed up and so did their. All they could do is to electrocute the innocent and make the poor maid to commite suicide. What a brave officers! The family covered their son health issues. Have you heard the Lindberg's words of "healthy and strong genes"? That kind of person could feel ashamed of ill child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.16.82.32 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What?

Under the section, Discovery of the body, I read this sentence-"Lindbergh used a "meat skewer" to slice open the child's face to identify the body via the teeth". There is a cite link, it's a ISBN book number. Since I don't own the book being quoted, I'm wondering if the sentence in the article is true, or vandalism. Why would Lindbergh use a meat skewer to slice open his own child's face? Why would Lindbergh be conducting an autopsy on his own child? 2601:483:100:CB54:F59F:9DB3:19E6:8807 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. I wondered about that too. I've removed this very weird statement because it was sourced to what appears to be a self-published book. EEng 04:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that statement EEng. I wrote the above and wasn't logged in. Paige Matheson (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I used the term "meat skewer" because that's what the Detective testified to. I believe it was a scalpel that was on the tray, but I cannot assume what's not in the testimony. I see your interaction asking "why" Lindbergh was there doing what he did and it proves to me you don't know much about the case. I have over 15 years of Archival Research. Most of the Authors who wrote a book on this subject consult me for information. No one has ever been through the documentation I have and it's all easily verifiable. I sincerely know more about this case then anyone on the planet. Simply check my credentials and my other contributions. My entire book is full of unique material because I didn't spend 2 weeks at the Archives before writing a book. I spent a decade and a half. M. Melsky