Jump to content

Talk:Lindbergh kidnapping

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SnarkyValkyrie (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 2 March 2021 (→‎What happened between April 2 and May 12?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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
I'm assuming you removed my post here by accident [1]; please be more careful. Your credentials don't matter; sources and their reliability do. I applaud your dedication to the case, and your thorough knowledge of it can be a great asset to improving this article and related articles. However (and I can imagine how frustrating this must be) we cannot relax our verifiability and sourcing rules for even for expert editors. Your book is self-published and cannot be considered a reliable source -- see WP:RSSELF. Once your work is published through a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, then it can be cited on Wikipedia. EEng 03:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry in advance if I removed your post. Next, the Archivist at the New Jersey State Police, Mark Falzini, has "self published" 2 books on the case. By your own argument, neither of these books are "reliable sources," nor is the fact he's been working at the NJSP as the Archivist since 1991. Your position that I am not reliable is flawed because all you have to do is: 1. Pick up any book on the case written since 2004 and read the acknowledgments. 2. Simply read the acknowledgement section of my book - where I linked a page where a preview exists so you can. 3. Call the Archivist at the NJ State Police Museum: 609-882-2000. In the meantime, if you don't think I am creditable then I believe it would be appropriate to remove all of my contributions. You reviewed them right? It wouldn't make sense to leave any because if Grand Jury Testimony isn't a "real source" then letters to the Governor, Official Statements, Police reports, and FBI Memos aren't either. By the way, after Betty Gow identified the child, Schwarzkopf told Lindbergh it wasn't necessary for him to see the corpse. He wanted to spare him the grief. However, Lindbergh insisted which is why he was in the preparation room at that time. Most books on the case use another previous Author's version that he "checked the teeth" as a means of identification. It's like playing "whisper down the alley." So I went to the NJSP Archives for 15 years and on one occasion went through boxes in the closet, found the Grand Jury Testimony by Detective Kirkham (who was there), then wrote about what he said in my book. Mark Falzini told me I had been the only person to ever go through that material, in fact, he didn't even know it was in there. The problem is most people don't know "who" Kirkham was. And why is that? Next, I was reading through FBI Reports yesterday where I saw Hoover mention that Galvin made copies of the ransom notes. Here again, most people don't know "who" Galvin was. But if there's interest in this case shouldn't they? Like I said, there is no one on this planet who knows more about this case then me AND it's verifiable. Anyway good luck - I know watching over these pages cannot be easy. M. Melsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6027:18:B196:7A94:9B1D:56F3 (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aribtrary outdent

Falzini's book published by Arcadia would be considered an RS since it was published by a publisher with editorial oversights and fact checking. Self-published sources must be used with caution because while they may be completely correct and thoroughly checked, they may also be works of fiction. Martinlc (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*A partial list of references which include books/authors who have acknowledged, footnoted and/or deemed Melsky as an Expert in the Lindbergh Kidnapping:
Falzini, Mark. 2008. Their Fifteen Minutes. Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case. iUniverse, Inc.
Falzini, Mark AND Davidson, James. 2012. New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial. Arcadia Publishing.
Gardner, Lloyd C. 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press.
Knapp, Robert. 2014. Mystery Man. Gangsters, Oil, and Murder in Michigan. Cliophile Press.
Norris, William. 2005. A Talent to Deceive. Synergebooks.
Reisinger, John. 2006. Master Detective. Citadel Press.
Schrager, Adam. July 2013. The Sixteenth Rail. Fulcrum Publishing.
Also it's important to note that I have (22) contributions on the Richard Hauptmann Wikipedia page and (1) contribution on the Gaston Means Wikipedia page that have remained there unchallenged since 2011. I cannot be "reliable" in one place and "unreliable" in another. Either I am reliable or I am not - it cannot be both. Another point I want to address is this idea that certain Publishers "fact check" sources. As an example please look at Jim Fisher's The Lindbergh Case (1987). Several of his "facts" have been completely debunked in Lloyd Gardner's book The Case That Never Dies (2004). Both of these books were published by Rutgers University Press. Ask yourself how 2 books say so many completely different things about this topic/subject if the exact same Publisher thoroughly fact checked both. Anyway good discussion, and again I certainly realize it is not easy to watch over these pages for fiction presented as fact. M. Melsky

EEng, I'm sorry. I just now logged in to Wikipedia and didn't realize what was going on. I guess this has been taken care of, but I agree that the "meat skewer " statement should be left out. I agree with EEng and Martinlc. M. Melsky, you wrote "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 don't know a lot about the case, which is why I was reading it to learn about it. My knowledge, or lack of, doesn't have anything to do with why I removed your information. I removed it because there was no reliable source. In fact, I don't understand why Lindbergh would be assisting in his sons autopsy to begin with. Paige Matheson (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paige, I refer you to my comment above which explains why Lindbergh was in the morgue slicing open his dead son's face. He was not assisting with the autopsy. As for the source: Kirkham, James S., Mercer County Chief of Detectives. Testimony. In the Matter of Paul Wendel, Mercer County Grand Jury. April 14, 1936. Page 53. New Jersey State Police and Learning Archives. There's no need to respond, and I no plans to contribute in the future. M. Melsky —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lindbergh kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lindbergh kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Fisher"?

I noticed that in the section "Trial and Execution" that there is a person only referred to as "Fisher." The citation links to a book authored by a "Jim Fisher," whom I believe is the one referred to in the article, however I feel that further review is required. Here is the paragraph in which the error appears:

Evidence against Hauptmann included $20,000 of the ransom money found in his garage and testimony alleging handwriting and spelling similarities to that found on the ransom notes. Eight handwriting experts (including Albert S. Osborn)[38] pointed out similarities between the ransom notes and Hauptmann's writing specimens. The defense called an expert to rebut this evidence, while two others declined to testify;[38] the latter two demanded $500 before looking at the notes and were dismissed when Fisher declined.[39] Others experts retained by the defense were never called to testify.[40]

96.93.121.237 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lindbergh kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened between April 2 and May 12?

The article says that the ransom was exchanged for a note about the whereabouts of Charles Jr. on April 2. It then skips to Charles Jr's body being discovered on May 12. Does anyone has a source for what happened in between? (For example, Did the note give an actual address? Did anyone go there? If it didn't, did anyone attempt to find where Charles Jr. was?) It is an odd gap.70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprised at the lack of discussion regarding forensics of the found child. It doesn't take a detective to consider the physical evidence of the body to be significant, and while (like many things in this case) there is a general lack of certainty about things, I would still expect information from the investigation and coroner to be relevant. Is there not reliable information regarding the speculated cause of death? Why the child was found in that location? Certainly Hauptmann didn't act alone, but there has to have been something else of note? SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sendak's age when he became interested

Under "In popular culture – In novels" – 1981: "...[Maurice] Sendak says that he has been obsessed with the case of the Lindbergh baby since he was two years old." Sendak was born in June of 1928; the kidnapping occurred March 1, 1932 — Sendak was "3½ going on 4" years old when the kidnapping took place. How, then, could he have been obsessed with it since he was 2? Precognition? Really, is this Sendak's own error in describing it, or someone else's? Was Sendak "exaggerating"? In any case, it doesn't seem like a good idea to just leave it with a blatantly erroneous statement. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:6DFF:5B77:7156:BBC3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. After actually reading the citation, it does not state anything about his obsession with being kidnapped (a la the Lindbergh baby) being tied to a specific age - just that it was a fear he had as a child. I made the correction. Ckruschke (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Rename this article?

FYI, I've been working through other articles like this. The pattern of other articles suggests that this article should be either Kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby or Kidnapping of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr. Fuddle (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what are these other articles? Seems like the suggestions just complicate the search string for someone trying to find this page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
[2] Fuddle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where Fuddle is coming from, and I'd support renaming as he suggests. We have, to name a few:
Wikipedia seems to be in favor of including victims' names in article titles about kidnapping. I don't think it would make this article harder to find. "Lindbergh" leads one to two subjects—the man, or the kidnapping. Matuko (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See COMMON NAME. "Lindbergh Kidnapping" is how the event was popularized and written about. I haven't checked, but suspect most RSs would support this title as is. This is similar to the recent exception / change made regarding aircraft crashes (eg: change to Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash from 1977 Mississippi CV-240 crash which had been its title for a decade or so); as most plane crash articles follow the old naming policy with a few exceptions. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this was my point back in March. Ckruschke (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Highfields

It's a very minor edit, but I changed the sentence to read that the baby was abducted "from his home, Highfields," instead of "from his home in Highfields" because Highfields is the name of an estate, not a town. Matuko (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Reprieve

The article says (emphasis is mine):

It became known among the press that on March 27, Hoffman was considering a second reprieve of Hauptmann's death sentence and was seeking opinions about whether the governor had the right to issue a second reprieve.

There's no mention of the first reprieve, issued by Governor Hoffman in January 17, 1936, the original date scheduled for Hauptmann's execution, and there needs to be, if a second reprieve is discussed. Matuko (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too was confused by this SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "kidnapping"

The words "kidnap" or "kidnapping" DID NOT EXIST prior to the press`s coverage of the supposed abduction of the Lindbergh child!!!!!!!!!!!! Its´s just a contemporary press invention. Therefore all earlier set movies, books, e.t.c. that uses the word "kidnap", in any form are out of context!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.35.40.66 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those wacky Swedes. "The original meaning of kidnap, dating from the late seventeenth century, was "steal children to provide servants to the American colonies," from kid, "child," and nap, "snatch away." (Google is your friend). You can also take your complaint to Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Kidnapped (pub. 1893). GenQuest "scribble" 04:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindbergh_kidnapping&oldid=1009872895"