Talk:Lindbergh kidnapping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject FBI. |
 |
||||||
|
||||||||
|
Editing Guidelines
|
||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
I moved to "Lindbergh kidnapping" since that appears to be the article's topic, not the baby himself. AxelBoldt 09:26, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I tried to write the article on the son as much about him as possible, but since the kid only lived to be 20 months old, that failed. WhisperToMe 07:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If the father is Senior, why is the baby III instead of Junior? RickK 06:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There were three, grandfather, father and child. Only two were alive at any one time, and the usual convention that Jr's don't stay Jr's when Sr's die was followed:
- (I) Charles A. Lindbergh (1859-1924) (Senator)
- (II) Charles A. Lindbergh (1902-1974) (aviator)
- (III) Charles A. Lindbergh (1930-1932) (kidnap victim)
-- Someone else 07:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Either way, the first sentence in the article and the section entitled "The Eaglet" are contradictory in naming the baby - "III" in the former, "Jr" in the latter. This should probably be sorted out. By the above reconing, "Jr" would be correct, no?
- The III and Jr problem has still not been resolved. Someone with sources on the naming convention used in the family would be most welcome to contribute! Isoxyl 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ransom Note Inaccuracies
The $ sign was placed after the numerical value within the actual ransom note, it was one of the many reason that Hauptman was under suspicion due to the fact that the Germans write their monetary values as 10,000€. Though I have used euros here, it has always been done. Furthermore an alleged photo of the Lindbergh baby's corpse (with deformed right foot identifying the body, can be found here [1]. (The picture is VERY graphic!) SKC
[edit] Claims of 'Charles A Lindbergh, Jr"
I find it odd, reading this article, that in the expanded section dealing with other possibilities there is no mention to the on-going campaign of "Charles A Lindbergh Jr", who claims to be actual Lindbergh baby and has legally changed his name to that of the child. Though his claims are highly debateable he has recieved a certain amount of press attention, notable in the Los Angeles Times (Oct 3 2004) and the Sunday Times Magazine (Jan 9 2005); the theory proposed by this individual that he was abandoned due to his father's contentious belief in eugenics, his 'geneitc deformity' (his overlapping toe) supposedly embarassing Lindbergh, I think is worthy of at least some passing mention. I however can not attest to have all of the information relating to his claims and therefore hesitate to make any update, but information concerning this matter can be found at his website here [2]. Hopefully someone possesed of more facts and citations could make some form of update to address this issue.
- I agree. This to me, is the most plausible explanation if Hauptmann is innocent, and one that I am currently researching. Also, another thing I think should be changed about the article is that it reads like a fiction story and the article is a bit disorganized with all its different sections. Maybe this article should be cleaned up a little for clarity? Osbus 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James J. Finn
Could someone sort out whether James J. Finn should or should not be a separate article? If not, please undo the link in this article, which currently redirects _back_ to this same article (see section James_J._Finn#Bruno_Hauptmann).
[edit] Details about the body
I edited for accuracy. According to the autopsy report, (which you can read here: http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/autopsy.jpg) the baby's right foot showing the distinctive overlapping toes WAS found with the corpse and was instrumental in identifying the body. There are of course issues with the identification, but that is not one of them.
[edit] Lacks objectivity
This article currently lacks the objectivity an encyclopedia article should have. It characterizes witnesses and participants ("a bombastic school teacher with cloak and dagger delusions"), characterizes evidence, chraracterizes the investigation ("badly bungled"), characterizes the trial ("media circus"). However, those are opinions, not facts. The article needs a thorough makeover toward an unbiased position. — Walloon 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any doubt at all that the trial was a media circus?
--I disagree, the author clearly input evidence in favor of both sides, the prosecution, and defense. --70.119.83.163 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)SlayerRob
[edit] Convolution
I'm sorry but I found this article very confusing and could not properly understand it, could someone in a position to do so, please tidy it up a little? Perhaps someone could arrange the contents into specific categories of theme, all the different names their repetition and interrelation serves to be very confusing especially in that the article does not clearly outline the significance of each or how they were involved with the kidnapping. Even if they were not involved or could not be proven to be involved it would be very helpful if this was made acutely clear - Guest 3 April 2006
[edit] Rosen?
The section titled "More Ransom Letters" refers to a letter being given to "Rosen". However, no Rosen has been mentioned up until this point. I suspect that this should be Rosner, referring to Mickey Rosner mentioned earlier in the article, but I have too little knowledge on the subject to be confident of making the change myself. --Kmwmtd 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is Rosner.--Osbus 19:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gold certificates discrepancy
The article stated that everyone had to turn in their gold certificates by a certain date in 1932: "Gold Certificates were to be turned in by May 1, 1932. After that day, they would be worthless".
However, later in the article it mentions that Hauptmann paid for his gas with gold certificates more than two years later: "More than two years after the kidnapping, on September 18, 1934, a gold certificate from the ransom money was discovered...ransom bills were paid when a man drove into a gas station". Why would the gas station owner have accepted them as payment if they were worthless, as previously stated? Plath81 19:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Lindy did it" theory illogical and politically motivated
What's funny to me about this ridiculous theory, perhaps the dumbest Lindbergh kidnapping theory of all, is how obviously illogical and Communist-Trotskyite it is. Obviously not every likes the fact that he kept the Austrian corporal advancing into bloody showdown with Uncle Joe, least of all the ACLU. Because Lindbergh believed in selective breeding (as did many respactable people at the time) he must have killed his own son for a slight birth defect. First of all the didn't get into eugenics until he left the country and met Alexis Carrell. Second, eugenics had as much to do with the Holocaust as the Beatles had to do with the Manson family. Believing in race as a valid concept and selective human breeding does not necessarily translate to advocacy of genocide or even "white supremacy," both of which Lindbergh abhorred. Finally, it goes against the real reason globalists and leftists would consider the Lone Eagle a cold-blooded killer and spread such lies about him: because his foreign policy position was that of a man who would have no qualms letting every child die except his own! For a debunking of this and other conspiracy theories, go to www.lindytruth.comShield2 01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
==Yet another person who uses the word "communist" improperly. Great. --70.119.83.163 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)SlayerRob
It is Communist motivated because it ignores evidence that Hauptmann was guilty for ideological purposes, namely ideology revolving around human equality rather than the human inequality that Lindbergh proudly stood for (which is why he gets so viciously targeted by left-wing radicals and even respectable liberal historians aren't too kind to him). Physical and even forensic evidence has proven Hauptmann was involved and history shows he got a more thorough investigation and fair trial than most criminals do now, and yet the conspiracy theorists all seem to rely on speculation and mention views that Lindbergh did not even develop until after these events took place for no particular reason except that they supposedly illustrate his character. These theories say more about the characters of those who concoct them than about that of Charles Lindbergh. What is the background of theorists like Ahlgren and Monier? What political organizations have they belonged to, donated money to, or accepted money from? Have they ever been addicted to drugs or alchohol or had problems within their family? If they are unwilling to answer these questions, the accusations they make cannot be taken seriously and should be dismissed as the work of lowlife muckrakers. I use Communist not so much in terms of overrated subjects such as economics and government, but in the sense of a world view. Internationalist social democracy shares the same utopian philosophical roots, and like adding 1+3 or 2+2, they both add up to the same thing. Am I being biased and unfair in saying that? No more so than calling Lindbergh a "Nazi" or a "fascist" when he was a nationalist and racialist. Having read everything there is to read by and about him, I can honestly say he was nowhere near as fanatical in either of these categories as the Nazis (or Dr. Carrel for that matter). How is associating all forms of nationalism or even racialism with facism and Nazism more acceptable than associating the ACLU and similar cultural Marxist groups and writers with Communism, an ideology that led to even more murders than Hitler's regime committed? And just as the real physical evidence points to Hauptmann's guilt, so too does military history point to the fact that for America to get involved in the war prior to Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union would have been suicide. For all his faults, Lindbergh was absolutely right about that. So it is a myth that it was negative for so many Americans to idolize him until late 1941, in fact it helped save this country from destruction. But Americans take for granted the fact that we have the strongest military in the world today, so we are very much in denial about the fact that we could not have survived, let alone won the war, if we had not let Hitler and his thugs roam freely for over two years. That I suppose is the opposite problem that Hitler had, and that is we are so obssessed with a radical inequality-based ideology that reality is thrown out the window (which is not the kind of nationalism or racialism Lindbergh believed in, whether you like his opinions or not). So Lindbergh haters use guilt by association and pseudo-scientific methods similar to "critical theory" to slander him for ideological purposes and to attack his entire image, ignoring the overwhelming physical and forensic evidence against Hauptmann and the historical fact that keeping America out of war for two years and keeping Hitler advancing into the Eastern Front was one of the main things that saved the West from destruction. Even if you think FDR was right to use his influence to push America into the war, in retrospect only a Soviet partisan or someone with a universalist ideology would look at the entire war and say it was a bad thing that Lindbergh used his influence to hold him off until late 1941. The former is a philosophical debate, the latter is a physical fact. Perhaps neither of them were wrong, since both were responsible for America's victory over Nazi Germany. Or maybe both were wrong, since neither had any qualms about appeasing evil people to achieve their foreign policy goals and had flaws that blinded them to the fact that this is what they were doing. But ideologues and conspiracy theorists do not look at facts in the same way that real historians do, they look at what they choose to believe. Some bottom-feeders make up lies and illogical conspiracy theories based on half-truths that ignore physical evidence and rely on speculation and politics to slander Lindbergh and ignore the real questions his fascinating and controversial career raises. (The closest right-wing equivalent to the belief that Hauptmann was framed is the theory that General Patton's death was no accident). Shield2 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crime of the Century Neoconservative propaganda?
I have just found the answer to my own question I raised in my statement about Nazis, Communists, and guilt by association: In 2002 Stephen Monier was appointed a U.S. Marshall by none other than George W. Bush[3]. Now, allow me to me use the same speculation and guilt-by-association methods he and Gregory Ahlgren (a lawyer, by the way. Which is worse than a Nazi or a Communist) use against Lindbergh in their ridiculous book. During the year (1993) the book came out, the so-called "neoconservative" imperialistic wing of the Republican Party was locked in a power struggle with the "America First" or paleoconservative wing which the latter eventually lost. Wouldn't the neocon wing (which has more money than God) have a vested interest in spreading lies about the most famous and controversial leader the latter ever had? What is Monier's connection to them, and how did it help his career? Do the ACLU types who endorse this book know who they are supporting? I'm not jumping to any conclusions here, but doesn't this raise a lot of questions about Monier and Ahlgren's neutrality and their intentions?Shield2 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
This is more of a biased essay on an influential event than it is an encyclopedic article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.66.172.38 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Baby not identified?
There's a paragraph in this article that mentions the baby is still "missing" as the body was never forensically identified. I was reading an article on CNN today that named the doctor who identified the baby. Here's a link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/07/bigbopper.autopsy.ap/index.html
His name is Dr. Bill Bass. I don't know where to even start researching which statement is true: missing or identified. That's why I'm posting it here for someone more familiar to possibly figure out.199.244.214.30 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inocent
I live in hopewell NJ and it's very obvious that Lindburgh is
