Customer Reviews

The Case That Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

There is something in the nature of crimes of note (and the conspiracies and competing theories they engender) that bring out the zealot in all of us. Such seems to be the case with the reactions to Dr Gardner's The Case That Never Dies : The Lindbergh Kidnapping. As noted elsewhere, Dr Gardner is the first professional historian to tackle the case, at least in book form. And his credentials are impressive: a professor of history at Rutgers University and the recipient of two Fulbright Professorships and a Guggenheim Fellowship. But credentials count for little when faced with the competing theories of die-hard case followers.

Dr Gardner's work is without doubt the best researched of all books on the case and a raft of new information is brought to the fore, all of it meticulously footnoted. However, where Dr Gardner differs from previous authors is his overall approach to analysing the case and the evidence. While the other major works are best described as "theory" books - i.e. they set out to prove Hauptmann innocent or Hauptmann guilty and wear such motives on their sleeves - Dr Gardner instead attempts to put the events in historical context and draws parallels with modern day attitudes to capital punishment. He poses more questions than he answers; he gives fertile ground for additional research. This, perhaps, is the nub of the problem for the self-appointed experts.

Discourse on the case today tends to focus on competing - and hotly disputed - theories. There is no generally accepted truth of the Lindbergh case, save that accepted in a court of law in Flemington in 1935. And that, after all, is but one theory. What seems to have enraged the natives is Dr Gardner's refusal to adopt a particular theory, his reluctance to draw conclusions, to join them on whatever side of the fence they happen to be. But that is a reflection of the book that they wished to read (or in some cases write) rather than the book which Dr Gardner - as is his right - chose to pen.

The book itself does contain some typos and there are some minor errors (and other alleged errors which are in fact just differences of interpretation), but to distort these into damnation of the book as a whole is to rather miss the point. For any student of the crime, this is an indispensable read and the most thorough reference book on the case. One doesn't have to agree with all of Dr Gardner's interpretations because the evidence itself is presented so clearly and is so well referenced that anyone who wishes to research further can do so off the back of Dr Gardner's hard work. The book focuses on the central timeline and the arrest and conviction of Hauptmann. The tangential stories of hoaxers Curtis and Means are given little further exposure as Dr Gardner chooses to concentrate on the meat of the case.

Expertise on the Lindbergh case is not measured through any long-service medal, or by commitment to any official theory but rather by recognising that however much one does know, one does not know everything. And that is what Dr Gardner offers: something for every student of the case, new or old. And given the mountain of literature on the case already, what more can anyone ask but that?

The dust jacket of The Case That Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner (Rutgers Univ Press, 2004), states this is the first book [on the LKC] by a historian. Whether Hauptmann was guilty or not, Gardner concludes there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first degree murder. Hmmm... what then was he guilty of? Manslaughter, extortion, bad luck, or anti-German prejudice?

There is much newly uncovered documentation, mainly from the FBI Records at College Park, Maryland, and the NJSP Archive. But totally omitted, for reasons that are unclear (for 3 years of delving), are the repositories known as the Bronx DA'a Papers and the NYPD Archives. Charles Appel's Treasury Report on Hauptmann's handwriting, and detailed analyses on ransom bill passing prior to the notorious shoebox discovery, are simply ignored.

Unfortunately, despite the advertising, the CTND is simply the latest book that has tried to sort through endless reams of data, but still manages to get many historical details egregiously wrong.

Characters and dates, ages, and other book titles are mangled throughout - misspelling even Hauptmann's name and that of the fortune tellers Peter and Mary Birrittella (two different ways on the same page), and even the 'Sheraton' Theatre in Greenwich Village. Sometimes Joe Perrone is John Perrone. On p. 305, he claims that Hauptmann's German-English Dictionary never appeared at the Trial - but it WAS introduced by the Prosecution and is listed in the Exhibits section.

The technique used in the chapters on personalities mainly concern innuendo - why was CALjr's picture on the Wanted poster taken from his first birthday party (it wasn't), and why did Betty Gow really use those safety pins to fasten Charley's blanket the night of Mar 1, 1932? We are ominously told (p. 410) that the baby was suffering from a rare malady called (craniotobes) - brittle bones of the head. The correct term is actually craniotabes and its definition is quite the opposite - excessive softening of cranial structures. The truth, rather banal, is that the child suffered from rickets, for which he was being treated by daily doses of Viosterol and artifical (ultraviolet) light - a fact freely admitted in the diet published in the newspapers. Statements in one chapter are contradicted in another, as if the author has not read his own book.

For example, some lost inventory cards have been found at the NJSPM which indicate that plaster casts were made of footprints at Hopewell - not specifically however of the footprint under the window. On p. 369, we are told that the State Police kept this exculpatory information from the Defense, and yet on p. 319, we are reminded that the very same details were openly printed on the front page of the NY Times (in a highlighted box), before the Trial (Sept 28). So which is it?

There are 2 photos of John Condon making the most of his new found fame and a single line, in passing, that JFC (alone) refused to accept any of the Lindbergh reward money. Rarely is an honest gesture understood. A mysterious footnote that Katy Fredericksen was having an affair the night she claimed that Anna was working is given as a Confidential Source. No further explanation... This is worthy of Startling Detective magazine, and keeps the pulp tradition of the 1930s alive.

What about the myths that have accumulated about the LKC over the years - should an historian help to dispel those? It doesn't happen here - on p. 19, once again we read that Lindbergh (forgot about a speaking engagement in NYC) on that fateful Tuesday. But the original records at NYU show exactly what happened - Lindbergh's secretary was misinformed and he thought he had agreed to show up on Friday, but not to speak. Chancellor Brown's wife had died in the interim and the date was sent in error.

Gardner deserves credit for locating the Mar 1-15, 1932 Reliance Payroll (at the NJSPM) - the one so touted by Scaduto and Kennedy as holding the key. So why not show it? Aha - Hauptmann's name is not there, as the Prosecution always said.

Should anyone get this book? I have to say (reluctantly) "yes." Despite my serious reservations about the poor use of the documentation and the self-defeating methodology and tone, Gardner does manage to cite a lot of material which will prove endlessly useful - to others.

After reading the other reviews I was apprehensive about purchasing this book, but I was pleasently surprised by it. The author has spent much time ferreting out those small but important details that make the Lindbergh kidnapping so enigmatic and entrancing. While there may be mistakes to be found in this work, I don't think they in any way detract from the overall balance of the book. I found Lloyd Gardner's book to be insightful and well tempered. Highly recommended for the serious or first time Lindbergh kidnapping reader.

The contents of Gardner's book are thoroughly reviewed elsewhere. I intend this "review" as a warning only for Kindle customers. The Kindle version of this book is faulty. Paragraph are in the wrong order, usually at the beginning of chapters. At best, having to unscramble paragraphs is distracting. At worst, it could lead to misreading of the text, which would certainly be unfair to the author as well as the reader.

This book attempts to sift through and analyze the contemporaneous information; both the evidence at Hauptmann's trial and other information available at the time that was not, for various reasons, presented to the jury as well as significant amounts of additional information that has come to light since Hauptmann's execution.

Professor Gardner considers in detail the four principle types of evidence that led to Hauptmann's conviction; (1) eyewitness testimony that either placed Hauptmann in the vicinity of the Lindbergh estate, at the payment of the ransom or passing ransom bills, (2) expert handwriting testimony with respect to the authorship of the ransom notes, (3) expert testimony tracing the wood and one of the tools used in building the kidnap ladder and (4) the discovery, following Hauptmann's arrest, of a substantial portion of the ransom money in his garage together with evidence with respect to his explanation for his possession of it.

As to each of these, Garner discusses some of the circumstances that have been advanced to throw doubt upon each element of the evidence which, absent such circumstances, certainly presented, in sum, an overwhelming circumstantial case. I was familiar with the essential evidence in the case from prior readings and had previously been of the view that, given the variety of circumstantial evidence and the number of witnesses involved, the hypotheses of either innocent errors or a "frame-up" were both incredible. Even before reading the book, I was disturbed by Hauptmann's stubborn insistence upon his innocence despite virtually being offered a commutation if he would admit his guilt and name his accomplices and his seeming choice to go to the electric chair rather than talk. The theory of some psychic block to admitting anything provided a possible, but less than convincing, explanation.

After reading the book, I am far less confident than I was before.

Professor Gardner's book raises serious and disturbing questions as to each of the major elements of proof; eyewitnesses who had repeatedly changed their stories or were pressured to make identifications, the main prosecution handwriting expert's initial inability to link the ransom notes' handwriting to Hauptmann which changed only AFTER he had been informed of an eyewitness identification, frailties in the wood expert's testimony and additional information about Fisch (whom Hauptmann had claimed had given him the ransom money) that increased the plausibility of Fisch's involvement in the crime.

Most disturbing of all that, according to Gardner, (1) a great deal of this exculpatory evidence was never disclosed to Hauptmann's defense lawyers and (2) they were given an inadequate opportunity to conduct their own analyses of the physical evidence and investigation of witnesses in preparing Hauptmann's defense. This, together with the trial judge's highly suggestive discussion of the evidence during his charge to the jury, very likely had a substantial influence on the ultimate verdict.

Of course, accepted standards for the conduct of criminal trials were quite different in the mid-1930s from what they are at present; for example, there was no requirement that the prosecution disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession, regardless of whether it would have been effective in either exhonerating the defendant or raising a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The standards of one period do not necessarily provide fair criteria for the evaluation of conduct during another.

But even though Hauptmann's trial may have passed legal muster by the standards that prevailed at that time, I conclude that the trial was far from fair and that, had it been otherwise, there is a real likelihood that reasonable doubt could have been established to the satisfaction of the jury, at least as to the first degree murder charge, although perhaps not to a lesser charge of complicity in the extortion of the ransom payment.

Professor Gardner's assembly and consideration of voluminous materials is impressive, despite sometimes enigmatic presentation of his sources in his footnotes and despite an occasionally disjointed analysis of particular aspects of the case in diverse parts of the book.

Overall, however, the book is an interesting and informative presentation that is well worth reading, not only for one interested in the Hauptmann case, but also as an object lesson in why modern rules of criminal procedure do much more than merely create potential technicalities for the avoidance of criminal liability but, on the contrary, are essential to achieving the dual objectives of ascertaining guilt while minimizing the risk of error.

"The Case That Never Dies: The Lindbergh Kidnapping", Lloyd Gardner, Rutgers Univ. Ress, NJ, 2004. ISBN: 0-8135-3385-6, HC 415 pgs., plus Notes 44 pgs., Biblio. 4 pgs., Index 14 pgs., and 30 B & W Photographs/Illustrations. 9 1/2" x 6 1/2".

Gardner, a distinguished Prof. of History & author of a dozen books gives a fair-minded exaustive analysis of the Lindbergh baby's kidnapping (Mar. 1, 1932), ransom, murder, and the subsequent apprehension, trial (Jan. 2, 1935), conviction and execution (Apr. 3, 1936) of german immigrant Bruno Richard Hauptmann (BRH). To the chagrin of many readers, but more-so to the author's credit, is Gardner's neutrality or foregoing of taking one side or the other, but rather walking a fine line to avoid and evade bias, prefering facts to speak for themselves but still pointing out errors made by authorities & both legal counsels.

The writer drew heavily upon FBI records and from the official Police records, papers and documents in repositaries, museums, etc. Of interest are photographs of the colorful notables and of the Lindbergh's home floor plans. The book has 16 chapters, each rather sharply devoted to the testimony or viewpoints of a specific person, topic or subject matter. The read is tedious at times for much is built upon recorded witness testimony in and out of court, oft "she-says he-says", and at many times outbursts from questionable sources having questionable motives -- but all of which is part and parcel of the Hauptmann trial. We learn, for example, of the tricky and complicated money transfers by BRH in a variety of business schemes and con games, stock market tradings, possibly money laundering, and how the ransom money gold certificates were crucial in finding BRH, and of the sundry hiding sites BRH used to stash away the ransom moneys. The author also deals with the previously noted imperfections of baby Lindbergh, alleged to have overlapping of toes bilaterally, enlarged cranium with open fontanelle and mention is made of possible rickets (not uncommon in those days, but no mention of possible hydrocephalus). Gardner also notes the 1948 discovery by Bolliard in NJ of writing on the underside of a small table that also had a small metal brace whose holes were discovered by Falzini in 2002 to matched the markings of the ransom notes precisely.

"It was a two million dollar funeral", although BRH was a declared pauper, brought to bear by the states of NJ, NY and the USA to "turn a human being into a whisp of smoke and a jar of dust", said Lloyd Fisher. In the end, "Gardner concludes that there was insuffient evidence to convict him (BRH) of first-degree murder." It remains the finest documented book I've encountered on this subject, a must read.

I have read many books about the Lindbergh kidnapping. I feel Lloyd Gardner's book is thoroughly and thoughtfully researched. I have read it twice carefully and each time I read it I discovered new information. Who was John Condon? Why did Violet Sharpe commit suicide? Why did Lindbergh act so strangely the night of March 1,1932? Does a parent call his attorney before calling the police when he suspects his 20 month old child is missing? There are so many bizarre events surrounding the disappearance of the Lindbergh baby that it is no surprise that Lloyd Gardner titled his book "The Case That Never Dies". The trial was a farce and a circus: an embarrassment to the State of New Jersey. Read it!!!!

Gardner has produced a book that allows the reader to consider the evidence and make thier own conclusions without being presented a prosecution brief of a Jim Fisher(Lindberg Case-1987). Bruno Richard Hauptmann appear to have been involved. But the key word is appears. Gardner does a good job showing inconsistencies of a John Condon ( a bigot by the way that wanted to blame the I-talians).He explores the weirdness of the crime itself. The Lindbergs normally were not at that house on Tuesdays. The window was unlocked,the right shutter was warped,the baby was not to be disturbed by a Charles Lindbergh routine from 7-10,that demanded that the baby was to be left alone.This suggests inside help contrary to the lone wolf theory. The flimsy ladder allegedly made by the carpenter Hauptmann. The narrow window,the lack of any prints which is contrary that a lone wolf wiped down the room and could have commited the crine . Other details such as the ladder being set off to the right of the window,indicated to the police that the kidnapper (Isido Fisch)was left handed. I don't believe that in the case of Hauptman,that is the fact . The footprints that don,t fit Hauptmann left at the house or the cemetery where the ransom was paid off . The window was closed upon leaving the bedroom so the lone wolf Hauptmann had to do wife down the room, find the off set ladder with his legs,carry the baby and close the window all of this by himself . This is not believable and this smells of inside help-indeed Violet Sharpe a maid in the other Morrow house committed suciide after being evasive. This book demonstrates that the hand writing that doesn't match as much as Fisher's book claims.

I use to believe that Hauptman did this by himself but this book rasied enough doubts. I cannot understand the criticism on the scholarship on the book. Sure there are mistakes but is calling Joe Perrone, John Perrone enought to dismiss this book? A good book by some psychologist would be why some people attack anyone that raises concerns that Hauptmann did this alone? Why the emotion in protecting police mishandling of the case,after 70 years? Lindbergh was a national hero and with that fame came this horror but Lindbergh sqandered much of the good wiil from this tragedyy by coming a friend of the Third Reich and making speeches that were Anti Semitic. After 70 years we need more of this scholardhip . I recommend any serious researcher of this case to get this book and use the info the serch out new leads as the table that was found recently 2002 that appears to be the template for the ransom notes

As someone who has researched the Lindbergh kidnapping extensively for the past fifteen to sixteen years and as someone who is currently writing a book on the case, I waited with bated breath for many months for this book. I was hopeful that, based on Mr. Gardner's reputation, that this would be a significant book on the case that would dispel many of the legends and falsehoods associated with the case. I could not have been more disappointed.

From a literary standpoint, the book was not written well. It is a tedious read and lacks any prominent ending. The book just stops.

The theories offered by Gardner are not consistent with the facts and evidence. There are only two new pieces of evidence offered and no significant discussion of the "tabletop confession" which is the latest and most significant development in the case in at least ten years.

Even more disturbing are the casual references to outlandish theories without any evidence or support. For example, Gardner suggests that Violet Sharpe -- the victim of a suicide-- was actually murdered by Septimus Banks. This one line is extreme and not one iota of proof is offered. There are many other examples.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the book are the inaccurate citations. At one point, Gardner accuses John Condon of sexual improriety with a student and actually cites Condon's own memoirs as support. When I referered to my 1st edition copy of Condon's book and checked the citation, there was absolutely nothing there.

In all, the book was a major disappointment. I gave it one star because it is the lowest rating your system permits.

There are arguments to be made on both sides of this great case. As an expert in this area, I very much enjoy good debate and was hoping this book would be intellectually stimulating. Instead, Mr. Gardner served only to further muddy the waters.