Lindbergh kidnapping and forensics

• DATE: March 1, 1932

THE EVENT: When the infant son of the famous aviator Charles A. Lindbergh was kidnapped and later found dead, this shocking attack on the family of an American hero was called the crime of the century. An extensive investigation led to the arrest of an illegal immigrant, Bruno Hauptmann. After a highly publicized trial, Hauptmann was convicted on the basis of handwriting, wood, and other evidence.

SIGNIFICANCE: The Lindbergh kidnapping case was an important and highly publicized demonstration of the value of forensic science to criminology. The case involved one of the most extensive uses of handwriting experts in the history of American criminal investigation. The analysis of the wood evidence in this and other cases by Arthur Koehler, federal wood expert, served as a precedent for the admission of botanical evidence in later trials. Because of this contribution, Koehler is considered the father of forensic botany.

On March 1, 1932, the infant son of Charles A. Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh was abducted from his crib in the second-floor nursery of the Lindbergh home. A ransom note was found on the windowsill; it demanded a payment of fifty thousand dollars. The handwriting of the note suggested to some that the writer was German. In addition, a homemade ladder was found a short distance from the Lindbergh house. Over the next few weeks, the family received a series of handwritten communications, and eventually the ransom money was paid. The child, however, was not returned, and on May 12, 1932, an infant’s decaying corpse was found a few miles from the Lindbergh estate. The corpse was identified as the missing infant by both Charles Lindbergh and Betty Gow, the baby’s nurse, who also recognized clothing and thread found on the body.

For two years, the case was investigated with little success. The serial numbers of the bills used to pay the ransom had been recorded, and some of the money began to turn up, primarily in the Manhattan and Bronx neighborhoods of New York City. In September 1934, Bruno Hauptmann was arrested after he paid for gasoline with a ransom bill. Hauptmann was German, had worked as a carpenter, lived in the Bronx, and had quit his job on the same weekend in 1932 when the ransom money was paid. Further investigation led to the discovery of almost fourteen thousand dollars of the ransom money hidden in his garage. Hauptmann denied involvement in the crime and claimed that the money had been given to him by a friend who had since died. His lawyers accused the of framing Hauptmann in an effort to obtain a in the high-profile case. Hauptmann was tried, found guilty, and executed for the crime, but subsequent revisionist literature has included accusations that the police manufactured evidence and that Lindbergh himself was involved in the crime.

At the heart of the case were two important streams of physical evidence: the handwritten ransom notes from the kidnapper and the homemade wooden ladder found at the scene of the crime.

Analysis of the Handwriting Evidence

After Hauptmann was arrested, police investigators procured previously existing samples (known as conceded samples) of his handwriting, including automobile registration forms and personal letters. In addition, the police dictated special passages to Hauptmann with sentences constructed from words that occurred in the ransom notes, and Hauptmann created new samples (known as request samples) of his handwriting. Eight prominent handwriting experts compared the conceded and request samples to the ransom notes; among these experts was Albert S. Osborn, considered by many to be the dean of handwriting analysis.

The experts analyzed two aspects of the writing in the samples and the ransom notes. They compared the shapings of the words and letters, and during Hauptmann’s trial they used word and letter charts to identify and display a large number of corresponding characteristics in Hauptmann’s writing and the ransom notes. In addition, the experts compared misspellings in the ransom notes with misspellings in Hauptmann’s writing and found them to be similar. All eight experts testified in court to their conclusions that Hauptmann had written all of the notes. Four additional experts, kept in reserve by the prosecution, reached the same conclusions.

The defense presented one handwriting expert at trial, John Trendley, who testified that Hauptmann did not write the notes. Analyses conducted much later by three handwriting experts hired for a review of the case to air in a 2005 episode of the Court TV television series Forensic Files generally supported the findings of the earlier prosecution experts.

Over the years, the handwriting evidence in the Lindbergh kidnapping case has been challenged in a number of ways. Hauptmann himself accused the police of directing him to misspell words during the dictation of the request writings. It was demonstrated during the trial, however, that misspellings comparable to those in the ransom notes occurred in Hauptmann’s conceded writings as well as in the request writings.

Allegations have been made that the similarities between Hauptmann’s handwriting and the ransom notes were common to most people who were taught to write in Germany during the early part of the twentieth century. The experts at the trial pointed out and discounted common German handwriting characteristics, however. They also identified individualized variations from the standard German style, such as a variant of the letter x, that were present in both Hauptmann’s conceded writing and the ransom notes.

It has also been asserted that the similarities in shaping of words and letters between Hauptmann’s request writings and the ransom notes were the result of police coercion; that is, the police forced Hauptmann to imitate the handwriting of the ransom notes. Experts who studied the notes found the request writings to be free and automatic, however, with no signs of such coercion. The use of the conceded writings also served to demonstrate that the corresponding characteristics in the shapes of the words and letters occurred in samples in which no police was possible.

The Wood Evidence

In 1933, Arthur Koehler began a detailed examination of the ladder found at the scene of the Lindbergh kidnapping. Using oblique lighting analysis, Koehler found an irregular pattern of planer marks, the patterns of cuts created when milling machines shape a board, on two of the ladder rails. These marks included defects caused by nicks in the planing machine blades. After a long, exhaustive search, Koehler was able to locate another board with the same defects and planing patterns at a lumberyard in the Bronx, the National Lumber and Millwork Company; he concluded that the board had come from the same planing run as the two ladder rails. After Hauptmann was arrested, it was found that he had worked at the same lumberyard.

Koehler identified an irregular series of ridges along the hand-planed edges of some of the boards and reasoned that these tool marks were left by a hand plane with nicks in its blade. After Hauptmann’s arrest, Koehler was able to match these marks to a blade on one of Hauptmann’s planes. In addition, an inspection of the attic of Hauptmann’s home revealed a partial attic floorboard, suggesting that the remainder had been cut away. When one of the rails from the ladder, rail 16, was placed in the gap, nail holes in its side were found to align with nail holes in the joists in this area in angle, shape, and location. Upon examination of the botanical characteristics of rail 16 and the partial attic board, including the tree ring patterns on both sides and the edges, Koehler concluded that rail 16 had once been a part of the floorboard.

Over the years since these events, Koehler and the police have been accused of planting this evidence. Later examinations and studies, however, have supported Koehler’s conclusions that rail 16 was once a part of the floorboard in question.

Errors in Investigative Procedure

Although the Lindbergh kidnapping case is notable for innovative uses of forensic science, the case was also riddled with lapses in proper investigative procedure. For example, investigators handled the ladder without gloves, hampering later attempts to use fingerprint identification to connect it with the suspect. One investigator apparently poked the remains of the baby with a stick, an act that led to confusion regarding cause of death. Koehler’s courtroom diagram of Hauptmann’s attic included minor errors in measurement. These mistakes, and others, left a legacy of suspicion, mistrust of police conduct, and complex conspiracy theories, underscoring the pitfalls that result from an absence of meticulous police procedure.

Implications of the Forensic Evidence

The forensic analysis of the physical evidence in the Lindbergh case was crucial to the solution of the crime. Although Hauptmann claimed that the ransom money had been given to him by a friend, the wood evidence demonstrated that Hauptmann was involved in the crime from the beginning. The handwriting evidence proved that Hauptmann was a willing and conscious participant. The analysis of this evidence and the public presentation of that analysis made the Lindbergh case a landmark in forensic science.

The Lindbergh case continued to hold public attention into the twenty-first century, with historians suggesting alternative theories decades after the crime. As forensic technologies improved, enthusiasts have called for a reexamination of evidence, however, courts have repeatedly denied such requests.

Bibliography

Fisher, Jim. The Ghosts of Hopewell: Setting the Record Straight in the Lindbergh Case. Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.

Graham, Shirley A. “Anatomy of the Lindbergh Kidnapping.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 42, no. 3, 1997, pp. 368–77.

Haring, J. Vreeland. The Hand of Hauptmann: The Handwriting Expert Tells the Story of the Lindbergh Case. Hamer, 1937.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 28, no. 4, 1983.

Koehler, Arthur. Technique Used in Tracing the Lindbergh Kidnap Ladder. Report R-1420, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1937.

"Lindbergh Kidnapping." FBI, www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/lindbergh-kidnapping. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.

Pillets, Jeff. "Use Modern Forensics to Settle Questions in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case?" NJ Spotlight News, 30 Jan. 2023, www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/01/could-dna-testing-settle-questions-in-lindbergh-kidnapping-case-judge-and-state-say-no/. Accessed 12 Nov. 2024.