Seriously, History Channel. Keep these coming. Don't change the formula. Ten minute videos on interesting topics with Morpheus doing the start and finish.
I stayed at that (their) summer house! It’s now a house for young ladies to get help with abuse trauma and youth help. It’s beautiful & so peaceful their ♥️ all woods & all kinds of beautiful plants & animals! I’m so happy now I got more info Bc I use to do the house tours for book writers & reporters & citizens. They & their home will always have a special place in my heart💜💜💜
I've always wondered how it was possible the baby was within a mile or so of the house? He should of been found with a simple grid search. Either they never searched the surrounding area, or he wasn't there when/if they did search. A search should of been the first move even back then. Lindbergh didn't want the FBI involved for a reason.
The whole area surrounding the Lindbergh estate was minutely searched. If the body found on May 12, 1932, had been there then, it would have been found. It must have been planted there only after the searched had ended.
@@deanneparis8888 that's why I think he had something to do with it. He admired Hitler. He believed in a master race. Any deformity wouldn't do. Eugenics was a big thing back then with a lot of Americans and European elitists. Him being one.
This is weird but years ago when that book came out claiming it was Anne's sister who accidently killed the baby & Lindy covered it up, I worked with a girl whose family had lived in Hopewell & worked at the estate. She said it was well known that story was true!
@@samanthab1923 MY proof? lmao, where's Yours? Do some actual research. No 'accident' for a start. There was a fracture from the top of the skull to behind the left ear Plus a hole behind the right ear. Murder. And, Anne's sister wasn't even there.
How can History Channel air such a badly researched piece such as this one????? It is one of the most poorly videos I have seen in my life about the Lindbergh baby case.
Totally agree. This is what they called solved????!!!!!! How disappointing!!! Something happened in that house and the entire crime scene was staged. Baby was found not too far from the house and so much evidence just lying there in that place. And how such a man entered that kind of house and then conveniently leave the ladder. No this is not solved.
Yes, and the facts in this case, that have been revealed since, would exonerate Bruno Richard Hauptman of this murder. The public at that time demanded someone pay, and a scapegoat (hauptman) fit the bill. So the simple truth is, this "crime of the century" was *not solved* .
Well it doesn’t mention that Lindberg had 7 children by 2 or 3 different women in Europe & 2 weeks before the disappearance he hid the child in a closet for 3 hours- sending the household & wife into a panic, saying it was a joke. He was known for his unfunny “jokes”
Fun Fact, My dad’s parents were taken in for questioning because my dad was the same age as the Lindberg baby. One day they were pushing my dad in his stroller and my dad looked so much like the Lindberg baby so they took my grandparents downtown. They lived in NYC.
@@mitchellglass6832 watch this case on weird history channel, charles are bit of eugenic and believe in aryan master race. His baby have some deform and he refer to baby as "it"
That would be horrible to know that an innocent man paid the ultimate price..Daddy may indeed have a hand in this crime..such a beautiful boy..RIP Charles Linbergh 2
Would Hauptman have build a ladder that broke so easily. After all he was a professional carpenter and he knew he'd be coming down with a baby? How much did Charles Jr weigh?
Hauptman was just cashing in on the ransom but was not the culprit. How can anyone know where the baby's room is unless he has surveyed the area days before or is an insider.
Had to be an inside job. You can’t tell the baby’s room by standing outside the house. Plus they never stayed there during the week. Baby had a cold. That’s why they were there in a Tuesday night.
Hauptmann was innocent. That is 100% certain. He was not 'cashing in on the ransom'. He had no idea the gold certificates he found in the shoebox left with him by Isidor Fisch were Lindbergh ransom money. Fisch had been a conman, and Hauptmann had discovered that Fisch had fleeced him of several thousand dollars. He just decided to recover his losses, over a period of time, by using the money for his regular purchases.
Agreed -- his previous prank, as well as his belief in eugenics, just screams involvement. The baby may well have been dropped on the way down the ladder and his death wholly unintentional. The whole case is really suspect.
His memorabilia letters strange ly. Have same handwriting as the ransom note .the franking ' signature ' is like an airmail stamp Lindberg was an airmail postman . Celebrity. Culture even in the thirties!!!
Yup. See my comment to Beth Ryan for more on that. It may have been the case that just at that point in time, Lindbergh's secret life (with paramours and children) in Europe may have become more complicated for Lindbergh such that this pesky little kid he had with Anne was going to create a problem. And of course Chuck's not havin' any of that, so the kid's gotta go. And go he went. Lindbergh's likely true responses? #1. Oh well. #2. Yeah it's sad and all, but more importantly I had a problem and I solved that problem.
@@tudorchick1 I have looked into that theory and read some books, etc, but I just don't believe it. There were some hinky things that had to have originated inside though, so who knows.
I remember hearing about this case. What happened to this family was a tragedy, but meeting the kidnapper w/o police was a huge mistake. I can only imagine how difficult it would've been for them trying to move on from this, and the poor baby had to have been terrified 😢
Lindbergh (the actual kidnapper/murderer) put himself in charge of everything. He insisted that the police not interfere. He invited known gangsters to assist in the investigation. The baby died from a fractured skull when the ladder collapsed.
@@theincorruptedeye8226 Are you suggesting Lindbergh was the kidnapper and murder of his own son? This is how who post reads. How were, "known gangsters" enlisted to assist the investigation?
@@mitchellglass6832 yes they did & he said he got it from friend named Fisch (sp?) However both before & after Hauptmann’s trial & execution, various people used marked bills & they never even tried to find those people. The problem with dropping the baby is *the ladder was not built to support someone weighing over 125 lbs. *if an intruder was taking a 30 lb baby down, the instability, etc. would probably cause the “kidnapper” to drop the baby. Hauptmann weighed 180 lbs. I think when arrested. Because of Lindbergh’s height, I think he would weigh even more. Add to that an almost 30lb. toddler & that would be far too much weight to a flimsy ladder. If the toddler fell, there would be a large indentation in the mud by the house. There was no indentation. Plus there was only a shallow indentation from the ladder in the mud. The famous photos showing the ladder against the house were very inaccurate- they were taken the following day along with boards covering the mud by the house. When CL & his male servant helping CL look for the child couldn’t see because it was a pitch black night, so CL sent his servant to the store to get flashlights but he saw the local police so he turned around and went back to the Lindbergh house & WOW ! CL led police right to the ladder 75 feet away in the overgrown foliage in total darkness ! 😳 Also by then reporters who heard about the missing child on Police radio 📻 & more Police had arrived who walked around the house & in the house, contaminating the unsecured crime scene. CL forbid the use of bloodhounds. CL even sat down with some reporters & even told a couple of jokes, while his wife was upstairs sobbing. On true crime shows I’ve seen, detectives always suspect people in the family & household first. They didn’t question either of the parents in any great detail & CL was put in charge- (not a trained detective) & even information that should have been given to the fBI- the information was actually kept from the fBI……Interesting 🤔 & sloppy.
@@robertn800 It is 100% certain Richard Hauptmann was innocent. Charles Lindbergh should have become the chief suspect, in time, if the police had been perceptive enough and had not been dazzled by his fame, because of the many strange aspects of his behavior in his own handling of the case.
the abc boys would not even help the Osage in oklahoma. the osage were being killed, found dead. their money and land was being stolen. big rabbit hole. there was alot of land and money. at that time they were the richest people on earth الصاعدي
As a young boy, Charles Lindbergh told anybody who would listen that he wanted to do what the birds do. But nobody took him seriously until he was placed in juvenile detention for befouling a public monument.
Hauptmann's last words were (in German, because he spoke and understood English with difficulty) "Ich bin absolut unschuldig an den Verbrechen, die man mir zur Last legt" (which means "I am absolutely innocent of the crimes with which I am charged")."
The placement of the ladder in the original picture would indicate help. Some would have to hand the baby out the window, I've been on ladder's my whole life you cannot climb in the window with the ladder set to the side of the window, the ladder would need to be against the window sill.
The ladder was a prop, to provide a plausible explanation of how the child could have been spirited away from the house by an outsider, to deflect suspicion that this was an inside job. The many strange aspects of this case, in particular the behavior of Lindbergh, fall into place if it is realised that Lindbergh should have been the prime suspect. Just so you know, it is 100% certain Richard Hauptmann was innocent.
@@saveyourbacon6164 I live not far from the Lindbergh home, I've never believed someone else did it! I think it may well have been Lindbergh himself!! I have two son's...my anger would be palpitable! You know by looking at me, Lindbergh's behavior to my mind was strange to be charitable. The convicted man from first pictures to his demeanor on film looked a deer in the headlights to me. Lindbergh to duth not protest enough. Lindbergh went quietly into the night after the child's death.
I saw a documentary on this case where a journalist attempted to climb out on the ladder, and climb down with a package the size and weight of what the Lindbergh baby was and he was sucessful.
@colyhope6467 where was the ladder placed ? I do not believe that for a second, you can get on the ladder, baby in your arms, without the ladder kicking out to the side. The ladder would need to be in the center of the window against the window sill.
The trial took place in the country seat of my hometown in N.J. The court house was still there last time I saw it over 30 years ago before I moved out of that high tax state.
Why on earth did they think this guy was the kidnapper? I always thought that the ones asking for the elevated amount were just scammers trying to cash in on the crime. They didn't tell us any proof that this guy had the kid, they could only prove he had the bills. I would like to see the proof of having the kid.
A guy that lives close to my Hometown near Ottawa Kansas Killed 4 people in a robbery over drugs. Kyle Flack took the womans baby that he murdered and while he was driving over 65 miles an hour down a Kansas Highway torwards Osage City Kansas he threw the baby out of the car window where the child bounced off the highway and died instantly on impact. Yeah. Lets just say Kyle Flack is practically one of the most evil men in prison in Kansas.
It's very likely Bruno Hauptmann was not the kidnapper. Because of the anti-german sentiment that was prevalent during the time, it is why he was found guilty.
What about the wily dog? Terriers are famously alert, excellent watch dogs. A stranger would not have come anywhere near that house without alerting the dog - unless he was sedated.
I like the approach, but Bruno Richard Hauptmann didn't commit the crime all by himself. There had to have been at least one other person. He is most certainly guilty, but this "mystery" still has yet to be solved.
You got that right...read Scapegoat by Anthony Scaduto if you haven't already..at last someone who knows Hauptmann was rail roaded...I believe Isadore Fisch was cemetery John..
@@kevinbergin9971 "Common sense" is not evidence. The prosecution's handwriting experts did not claim Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes until they were shown the ransom money found in Hauptmann's garage and coached by the police.
Except that the crime wasn't satisfactorily solved. It's not certain that the dead child found in the forest was the Lindbergh baby and it's quite likely that Charles Lindbergh, an uncaring and very immature man, may have given away his child because he was so ashamed of the child's disability. He certainly treated the child very cruelly and behaved irresponsibly, doing things like hiding the baby in a closet to startle the mother. He would knock the child over for no reason at all. Hopefully he did give the little boy away as he would have saved the boy from having a miserable childhood.
@@robertn800 Thank heavens that now the community is much more accepting of disabled children and we have more supports for parents who are bringing up such children. Schools have more help for them, too, so that they can develop to their greatest extent, and the media and community in general usually treat disabled people with respect.
@@robertn800 1980 I visited from England to a place called Glenmoore near Downingtown, PA. Local pub a regular always insisted that he was the Lindbergh baby.
Was the baby disabled? I also think this man was just a pawn or completely innocent. that servant commiting suicide is very suspicious too. I think she and the father of the baby were involved and looked like someone bashed the baby's head to stop him from crying. Poor child. Didn't the mother tell her suspicions of her husband before she died?
There are a ton of credible sources now days which shows Bruno Hauptman not being the mastermind behind the abduction. Which means, not only that they executed the wrong man but the monster himself was never put to justice as many had believed. This case has had numerous copycats and have even been directly/indirectly references & tie-ins throughout history. Most recent is RDR2’s Luxembourg mystery which I believe is somewhat of a lose reference to this very same tragedy.
@@mitchellglass6832 The house still wasn't finished, that's why they were only there at weekends. The baby had a cold & the nurse was called to attend there & they stayed 2 extra nights. If you can't work out how someone would know where a baby's room was, I suggest you stick to cartoons. One was executed, another, maybe 2 others, were never caught
The house was empty during the week because the work was still going on And, anyone watching know the movements at the window & people talk to babies when putting them to sleep etc. They were there 2 extra nights because the baby had a cold
@@bethryan9077 lm reading a book called number one the man who got away and the finger points to Lindberg l have'nt finished it yet but it makes you think
@@bethryan9077 Your comment highlights one of the biggest gaps in the Prosecution's case: if Hauptmann, who had no access to inside information, was guilty, it meant he had to be in the immediate vicinity of the Lindbergh home on numerous occasions, at night, keeping the house under surveillance, to learn the patterns of the Lindberghs' movements, and also to identify which room was the nursery. He also needed to have everything ready to move, on the one occasion the Lindberghs' were ever staying on past the weekend. That meant also that he had to be there, keeping the house under surveillance, on Sunday, February 28, Monday, February 29, and Tuesday, March 1, without knowing on any of those days whether the family might leave in the mid to late afternoon to go back to the Morrow Estate. That meant absences from his home, at night, away from his wife, for which he could, at best, have provided feeble explanations. If he had been guilty, don't you think that Anna Hauptmann would have remembered numerous aspects of his behavior and actions, including these absences, unsatisfactorily explained at the time, and realised that everything fell into place if she recognised he must be guilty? She never did, and continued to campaign for his name to be cleared, to the end of her life, in 1994. Moreover, the Prosecution produced no evidence to show how he could have known the opportunity for the crime existed on Tuesday, March 1, 1932, nor any connection with any member of the staff of the Morrow estate or the Lindbergh home who could have provided inside information. It was very clear to the police, from the beginning, that this was an inside job. Hauptmann cannot be fitted into any theory which is based on the crime being an inside job. Of course, if Hauptmann had been guilty, the police would have got out of him full details of his accomplices and what access they had to inside information. Despite beating him up severely, he maintained his innocence. As he said himself, if he knew anything about the case, they would have got it out of him. He was innocent.
@@querubekelso9398 well if thats tru by ur logic, why would they say she had nothing to do with it after her death if they was monitoring her since day one... which means they felt guilty.. idiots
She knew her boss was guilty, & probably had threats against her & loved ones & cracked under pressure ! Presumption on my part just looking at all the evidence!
See in the old days they got stuff done. Found the murderer/kidnapper, convicted him, and executed 1 year later. None of this 15-20 years bullsh*t before they get executed.
To many things just do not add up, both Lindberghs were home and all the staff, why didn't the dog bark or the baby cry out when a strange man grabbed him from his bed also the latch on the window was broken and had not been fixed. It is known Lindbergh was a believer in Hitler's eugenics programs and the baby had man health and physical problems, makes you wonder.
You should note that Hauptmann was innocent. The ladder was a prop, designed to provide a plausible explanation for how an outsider could have taken the child, in the hope of concealing the fact that it was an inside job. I don't think anyone who realised what a shoddy piece of contruction the ladder was could possibly imagine himself climbing it to an upstairs window and trying to get off it, through a window and into a room. The risk of falling and breaking your neck would be extremely high. Once it is realised that Charles Lindbergh should have been the prime suspect, many of the strange aspects of this case, in particular his strange behavior, fall into place.
Yes, bc he was a big eugenics movement man, and the child had some issues when he was born, I don't recall what, but it's very interesting, explained and very plausible that he in fact did it, and why the nurse, dog, anyone never heard a thing, he had played hid the baby, scare the nurse a week before. Really good read.
@@cmont4064 The reason that Lindbergh acted was two-fold, he was nearly broke and and his mother-in-law was quite wealth, also to teach her a lesson, she practically raised his son and when she caught him abusing him she put a stop to it, so he wanted revenge. Guys like their children to be raised like they were, he was roughed up and left to fend for himself by his father, he was toughening the boy up, so to speak, a method of child rearing that didn't sit well with Mrs Morrow. The boy was in perfect health, other than having overlapping toes.
@@theincorruptedeye8226 Sir I believe it was written, the Marc Hoover article in 1984 around there, there is a book, but you may find the article intriguing.
@@cmont4064 Sir, may I ask you to briefly explain the premise of said article or tell me where to find it? Am I correct to say that it was simply in regards to Lindbergh being the culprit?
hauptman was clearly involved, probably the kidnapper. The evidence speaks for itself. To say hauptman wasn't involved is like saying o.j. didn't kill Ron and Nicole, even though his blood was found at the crime scene.
I DON'T THINK HE TOOK THE BABY JUST NEEDED SOMEONE TO BLAME. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE BABY THAT HIS FATHER THOUGHT HE HAD? HOW MANY MORE CHILDREN DID THEY HAVE?
@@robertn800 omg, you say you don't know how many children he had with Anne but you're bangin' on about a book you read & you've decided that Hauptmann is innocent. What, this great author didn't know that either? lol
@@soslothful Bruises to the skull, so Not true. There was a fracture from the top of the skull to behind the left ear plus a hole at the back of the right ear. They were only staying at the house at weekends because it wasn't finished & that's why they didn't know the staff. Nurse Gowe had been sent for because Charlie had a cold & that's why they stayed 2 extra nights. The garage attendant wrote down the license plate on the $10 note he had been given for the $1 of gas because he had been swindled the week before, nothing to do with the sketch
This is missing huge amounts of information, but I understand how it's made easier to digest. The Police and Government actually framed Hauptmann because all evidence shown was flimsy. They removed floorboards from his attic and replaced those on the ladder, they paid unreliable witnesses to say it was Richard, and even his own lawyer believed he was guilty before the hearing (He was also a massive fan of Charles Linbergh, and didn't want to speak against Charles). If you check his testimony and those of the first hearing, you can see how much it changed before his final sentence. The real criminal/s was never found, Hauptmann was a pawn in their plan (Isadore Fische was stated to have sent him the box of money as he owed large amounts of money to Hauptmann, but died of unknown causes during the trial).
Lindbergh was Not involved in the death of his child & there were 2 sets of shoeprints in the mud that led off to the east. Skull fracture from the top of the head to behind the left ear Plus a hole behind the right ear. No accident
All the evidence stacked against the supposed killer seems to be the only way to be convinced at first glance that he done it but there’s so many things that were goin on with that whole situation with the Lindbergh’s their help and everything. Regardless of who done it I’m convinced they accidentally dropped the kid then left it not far from the house and still tried to make as though they still had him and proceeded to blackmail for the ransom. But there’s so many unanswered questions to that theory so only the Almighty knows what really happened all we can go by is what was left behind what was found and what was said in the end.
@@saveyourbacon6164 They all say that but how comes he had all those signed notes from the ransom and same timber was found in his working place as the fixed ladder 🪜!!
But he didn't know where the room was at, are y'all sure violet shapre isn't involved. She knew where the kid room was at so she might have helped him. While the father planned it because I do think he was involved somehow.
Hey, related to Violet - great x4 aunt or something? Anyway, the whole story is so sketchy, they save its solved but there are other questions, and im not convinced about Violets story either - her death seems suspicious. I've been researching for years honestly it just feels like there's a whole in this story.
What is your question? Perhaps I can help. Violet knew more than she could say, because she as well as all of the servants knew how quickly they'd be deported, if they spoke one word of truth.
@@theincorruptedeye8226 yep pretty sure Charles Lindbergh killed his own son. She probably knew something to link him to the murder if his son. The man was a narcissist. Like most narcissists bumping someone off isn't behind them...especially if the target makes them look less than perfect
First of all why would that lady kill herself ,she had something to do with it also why would the doctor volunteer to be the middle man and not be able to identify the kidnapper he had something to do with it did they ask him if the guy they caught was the guy he spoke to this was always an inside job they had to been told when to go into the exact window.who lived within the five mile radius that worked for them
People kill themselves all the time for some really silly reasons, failed romances, financial problems, fear of the future, it is hard to say. Dr. Condon or "condom" as you call him, was a type of person that felt that volunteering as a middle-man was a patriotic or civic duty. If Hauptmann has surveilled the Lindbergh home for any length of time he could figure out which window to go to.
@@Bumper776 Hauptmann never had the Lindbergh home under surveillance. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime, He was innocent, and at his trial, no evidence was produced that he had the Lindbergh home under surveillance. Anna Hauptmann would have known about frequent absences from home at different times if Richard had been away keeping the Lindbergh estate under surveiilance to gather information about the Lindbergh family's pattern of movements and to discover which room was the nursery. The prosecution produced no evidence to show how Richard could have known that the family had stayed over until Tuesday, contrary to their established practice. Anna maintained her belief in Richard's innocence to the end of her life and never gave up her campaign to clear his name.
I really wish that someone invented a machine that would make the killers fell the paid they inflicted plus 10. If now a days is possible to understand the brain regions where fear, pain, grief are and all those bad bad feelings.
If someone denies guilt to the end this will not close a big case: people will wonder. Would that be a likely strategy if somebody has been a part of something (& doesn´t reveal who did it) or has willingly accepted a role as scapegoat? Refusing to admit guilt all the way often is an innocent reaction (men with shady morals seldom care if it comes with benefits).
I heard on a show in the 70's that the wood for the ladder was traced back to the floor boards in his garage attic. That was very incriminating. Also look at the construction of the ladder. A carpenter with some talent made it...its way above average for what a handy man would quickly nail together. A lot of thought was put into its design. That with the money found in his garage got him convicted. This show left out that the money was all gold certificates for a good reason. There were not many gold certificates in circulation at the time so the ransom was paid using them. Then everyone had to take all gold certificates back to the bank and turn them in. That way anyone using them was thought to be a suspect in the crime. The gas station attendant was on his game that day one was used in his station and he wrote down the license plate number of the car on the bill. That lead them to Hauptman. My grandmother told me this was a big news story in its day and it is still very interesting.
You really need to watch the movie that explains this case.. poor Hauptmann’s case was circumstantial..this documentary is absurdly based on the theory given by the attorney general who was the lead prosecutor in this case.. ABSURDITY!
@@orchids_n_ol6880 Poor Hauptmann? Nonsense. Court cases have Always been about circumstantial evidence dear. They had Plenty on him & that's why he was convicted.