Jump to content

Talk:Lindbergh kidnapping/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Objectivity

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)

Poorly Written

Besides the obvious lack of objectivity present in this article, there is also a total lack of coherency throughout most of the writing. The section "Enter Violet Sharp", for instance, is plagued by convoluted story structure and terrible grammar. I'm not a scholar on the Lindbergh kidnapping, and do not intend to modify the article. I do believe, however, that biased and poorly written articles such as this should be completely overhauled before they damage the credibility of Wikipedia.

R.A.

I can BARELY understand the section called "Enter Violet Sharpe". It needs more research and a rewrite. Her probable involvement is just as interesting as Bruno Hauptman's. DEM MarsDEM

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


Ransom note now fixed. There were more inaccuracies than just the dollar signs. See: http://www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/ransom.html for a color photo of the ransom note. May 19th, 2007. MarsDEM

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)

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).

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.

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

--I completely agree it lacks objectivity. I just looked at the article, not knowing anything at all about it, and barely into the intro I completely lost interest due to the bias. 70.104.17.241 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

The article is a year off — I will correct it. President Roosevelt issued an executive order on April 5, 1933, calling for the return of gold money to the Federal Reserve by May 1, 1933 (not 1932) under pain of ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. But the public kept them past the deadline. As of March 31, 1934, $161 million in gold certificates were still in general circulation. As long as the giver and the receiver of the gold certificate agreed that it had a certain value, it did have that value. — Walloon 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Innocent

I live in hopewell NJ and it's very obvious that Lindburgh is guilty.

== I live in Flemington, NJ, where the trial took place. We learn about it elementary school through high school. It's quite obvious that Bruno Hauptmann did it. 147.9.33.224 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

I just stuck a POV tag on this article due to concerns noticed by me and expressed above. Frequent visitors here might want to visit http://www.state.nj.us/state/darm/links/guides/slcsp001.html, where the New Jersey State Archives recently posted photographic evidence from the trial, all of which looks quite convincing to me. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindbergh baby claimant at charlesalindberghjr.com and DNA test

I've added a qualifier to the statement that the former Paul Husted underwent a DNA test that proved he was related to Reeve Lindbergh. It was previously stated as fact, but I haven't found it anywhere else but at the "Coast To Coast AM" conspiracy radio show's web site. I have also cleaned up the wording and the references. Graymornings 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I just spent the past hour and a half rearranging and rewriting this article to try to address the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems that have plagued it and drawn many complaints. I also added a couple of images. I think I have eliminated the POV problems and have removed the POV tag. Please feel free to make further revisions. I hope at least that it's a better read now! -- But|seriously|folks  07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this. Good job! The article has lacked a neutral point of view for a long time. — Walloon 07:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Simpson

homer simpson's father "Abe" is the lindbergh baby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.2.99 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that will get you about as far as the last Simpson DNA test . . . -- But|seriously|folks  03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
He DID claim it in some episode, but considering his normal state of mind... Yeah. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of body

It appears that there is no longer any mention of the discovery of the body within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.193.136 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is only a minor reference, but I remember there being much more detail before. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tales

There was a very well written science fiction story about what would have happened to the baby had he lived, but I gave that book away years ago. If someone else has it, could you mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Widow

Anna Schoeffler, the widow, campaigned for his name to be cleared to the end of his life. She sounds like someone worthy of at least a short biography. But there is no link on her name. There is, however, a link on "murdered" in case we don't know that that word refers to. Can't we remove some of the silly and unnecessary links, and just link to stuff that might further educate the reading on the topic, rather than every possible unrelated tangent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.66.29 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

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
I'm assuming you removed my post here by accident [3]; 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)
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)

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)
*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Please feel free to be bold and make edits or add content which you feel is missing. Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
Making snarky comments abut my questions does not add to the discussion. If I had information to contribute, I certainly wouldn't have waited for your permission to do so. SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion that you should be BOLD and add the missing information to the article is not being snarky. However, your response ... is. Please assume good faith. GenQuest "scribble" 19:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@SnarkyValkyrie - As GenQuest has suggested, it is very common to come to Talk and see someone (typically an anon IP or new editor such as yourself) make a request to have something they don't like about the article fixed. It is also a equally common response from established editors to suggest that the poster rollup their sleeves and make these changes themselves since its their idea. This is how you get experience as a Wiki editor. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

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)

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

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)

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
[4] Fuddle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Agree - this was my point back in March. Ckruschke (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

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)

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)

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)

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)

I too was confused by this SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Please feel free to be bold and make edits or add content which you feel is missing. Ckruschke (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindbergh_kidnapping/Archive_1&oldid=1136908952"