Was Bruno Hauptmann Guilty? The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

Introduction: The Trial of the Century

It was called the "Trial of the Century." Bruno Hauptmann was executed in the electric chair in April 1936, having been convicted of the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh's infant son (Cornwell 1). Lindbergh's fame as one of America's aviation heroes made Hauptmann's a high-profile case — one that may also have been tried in haste. Subsequent analyses of the Hauptmann trial indicate that the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence alone, and Hauptmann's widow continued to publicly proclaim her husband's innocence until her own death (Blackman 1). Hauptmann himself was offered the opportunity to save his own life in exchange for a confession, but he refused (Cornwell 1).

Was he framed? Was he protecting an accomplice? Given the abundance of evidence that does link Hauptmann to the kidnapping, the most likely scenario is that Hauptmann was involved in the crime but did not murder baby Charles Lindbergh.

The Crime and the Investigation

The crime occurred in Hopewell, New Jersey, in March of 1932. Baby Lindbergh was missing from his room, and a window was open. A ransom note had been left in the room. It was written in broken English, and the writer demanded $50,000 (Cornwell 1). The Lindberghs could afford to pay, and they did, hiring an intermediary named John Condon to transfer the money to the kidnappers. The money was handed over in marked gold certificates. Yet the baby was never returned, and on May 12, 1932, a truck driver who had stopped to relieve himself stumbled across the infant's decomposing body in a roadside wood near the Hopewell residence (Cornwell 1). The infant son of the most famous man in America had been kidnapped and murdered.

For two years, the case remained unsolved. Not a clue emerged. The police and the general public blamed organized gangs (Cornwell 1). Naturally, it seemed that a crime of these proportions must have been committed by a syndicate or at least someone with experience. Then the first breakthrough arrived in August 1934, and Richard "Bruno" Hauptmann's fate was sealed. One of the marked gold-certificate bills used to pay the ransom was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter who lived in the Bronx with his wife Anna and their eleven-month-old son Manfred (Cornwell 1). Hauptmann had been using the marked bills — against all reason — to pay for groceries, gas, and movie tickets (Linder 1). If Hauptmann were truly guilty, he most likely would not have been spending the ransom money on small daily purchases where the bills could so easily have been traced back to him.

It seems strange for a person smart enough to commit a crime of epic proportions to be careless enough to use marked gold certificates in routine transactions. Yet the police immediately concluded that Hauptmann was guilty. As a German immigrant, he stood little chance of receiving a fair trial. He was convicted in the court of public opinion long before any jury rendered a verdict. There was enormous pressure to prosecute. The case had been cold for nearly two years, causing authorities significant embarrassment as well as $1.2 million in investigative costs — a fortune at the time (Cornwell 1). Moreover, Lindbergh was a public hero who had captivated the world after completing the first solo trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. The crime horrified people globally, drawing parliamentary statements from the prime ministers of Britain, France, Japan, and China (Cornwell 1). With the whole world watching, the police seized on the opportunity to prosecute someone — anyone — for the murder of Lindbergh's son.

Evidence Linking Hauptmann to the Kidnapping

The prosecution's case appeared, on the surface, to be fairly tight. Beyond the gold certificates, several additional pieces of evidence seemed to connect Hauptmann to the kidnapping. Police found more ransom money — $15,000 in total — in Hauptmann's garage. Also discovered there was wood matching, down to the nails, the material used to construct the ladder that had been used to reach baby Lindbergh's second-floor window. No eyewitness placed Hauptmann at the scene, though some reported seeing him in the area of Hopewell — a detail that carries little legal weight.

A background check on Hauptmann revealed a prior conviction in Germany for a crime involving a ladder (Linder 1). His criminal record was, in fact, quite extensive, including a four-year prison sentence for armed robbery — he had held up two women pushing baby carriages on a city street ("Bruno Richard Hauptmann Biography" 1). Hauptmann had also escaped from prison and entered the United States using false identification ("Bruno Richard Hauptmann Biography" 1). While his past criminal record had no direct bearing on the Lindbergh case, investigators concluded that their suspect fit the profile of someone capable of committing such a crime.

Further evidence emerged during the trial. Hauptmann's handwriting was said to match that on the ransom notes, and he made similar spelling errors (Linder 1). John Condon's phone number was also found in Hauptmann's home, suggesting that Hauptmann had been in contact with the man handling the ransom delivery. Additionally, Hauptmann quit his job just days after the ransom was paid. Being publicly identified as having Nazi sympathies only added to his usefulness as a scapegoat in the eyes of the public ("Bruno Hauptmann Executed" 1).

Conclusion: Guilty of Kidnapping, Not Murder

The best way to understand Hauptmann's role in the baby Lindbergh case is to recognize that investigators unnecessarily and hastily merged two separate crimes — the kidnapping and the murder — into a single charge against a single man. It is fairly clear that Hauptmann had some involvement in the kidnapping. It would have been far too much of a coincidence for him to have possessed the same type of ladder, $15,000 in marked ransom money, and the intermediary's phone number without having played some role in the abduction of Charles Lindbergh Jr.

The most plausible scenario is that Hauptmann helped to orchestrate the kidnapping with accomplices, and that the baby's death — whether accidental or intentional — occurred before the child could be returned to the Lindberghs. Whether the infant died by accident and the perpetrator panicked, or whether it was a deliberate act committed by someone other than Hauptmann, will likely never be known with certainty. What does seem clear, given the weight of the procedural failures and the exclusively circumstantial nature of the evidence, is that Bruno Hauptmann was not guilty of murder.

Works Cited

Blackman, Sam. "60 Years Later, Doubt Clings to Lindbergh Baby Kidnaping Case: Crime: The Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann Gripped America in the '30s. His Widow Still Insists That He Was Framed." Los Angeles Times, 09 Feb. 1992.

"Bruno Hauptmann Executed." History.com.

"Bruno Richard Hauptmann Biography." Charles Lindbergh: An American Aviator.

Cornwell, Rupert. "The Lindbergh Mystery: Could America's Most Famous Crime Be Solved at Last?" The Independent.

Latson, Jennifer. "How the 'Crime of the Century' Kidnapper Was Caught." Time, 19 Sept. 2014.

Linder, Douglas O. "The Case Against Bruno Hauptmann: Key Prosecution Evidence." Famous Trials.