Lindbergh may have had his own son kidnapped . . .

[Hard-up1]

The networks like Discovery or the History Channel often have opined about this mystery or that, without adequate basis or evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/ki...ergh-baby.html

This documentary seemed different, and the NOVA series on PBS has a great reputation for quality, so I saw this one differently.

Although Lindbergh's political sympathies with Nazi eugenics was already well known, most of the world was not aware of the extremes of it for him. I've seen documentaries all my life about Lindbergh, but they never ever mentioned his second family and children, which were proven by DNA to be his in 2003.

If you've no time for hour-length video links, the gist of the accusation is that the Lindbergh boy had health issues that would have implied genetic inferiority for the very earnest eugenicist. The short version is that Charles Lindbergh hired the kidnappers to take his son, possibly with intent to have him secretly institutionalized. Otherwise, his offspring would have weakened the race, family name, etc.

It's by no means proven, but it is based on more than just salacious accusations. It is a bit jarring to go from hero worship of one of the most famous aviators and pioneers of the modern era, to a monster who could have orchestrated this ruse.

Even the experts on Lindbergh who don't ascribe to his involvement, reveal that he was a total control freak, which certainly fits with the personality profile required. The proven bigamy is clear indication that he was capable of the very darkest concealment possible.

What do you think? Sensationalized pap for some theorist/author wanting sales, or possibly credible?

[BENDERBOY]

I am the Lindbergh baby, okay, maybe not.

Sounds like far fetched hokum, i'll give the link a look later. promise.

[Hard-up1]

Pics, or it ain't true.

Aw, hell, just pics.

Back to topic!

[gsdx]

Most documentaries will sensationalise such stories to get viewers and ratings. Unless PBS has changed, that's not their MO. It wouldn't surprise me to learn if that's what actually happened. Look at the controversy surrounding Frank Sinatra and his son. People do a lot of things to hide what they don't want people to know.

[Hard-up1]

The proven bigamy is clear indication that he was capable of the very darkest concealment possible.

BTW, this bears correcting. He was plainly a POLYGAMIST. He had THREE other secret families in Germany and Switzerland.

Another interesting article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/ga...anted=all&_r=0

I actually have a peculiar tie to the story. When I lived in Anchorage, I attended a small Episcopal church. The son of Lowell Thomas (American newsreel journalist of the early 20th century) was in his 80's or 90's. He and his wife were prominent Alaskans and attended there and sang in the choir. Their family had a home on Hawaii adjacent to the Lindberghs and Mr. Lindbergh is buried in their family cemetery there, or maybe it was that the Thomas' are buried in the Lindberghs'.

Frankly, it feels odd to be only two handshakes removed from this man.

[BENDERBOY]

Genetic inferiority, my arse.



Okay, back on topic.

[Benvolio]

There is no evidence he participated in the kidnapping, and by all accounts he loved the child.
I have also read the book "Cemetery John" about the John Knoll theory and it is totally without evidence.
But there is evidence that other people were involved in the kidnapping, and most people who have looked at the case have reached that conclusion. The police believed it until they caught Hauptman and he would not talk. So they prosecuted him and closed the case. The most likely accomplice was Isadore Fish, a friend of Bruno's whom he claimed had given him the box to hold which turned out to have a third of the money. Fish went back to Germany to see his family and died of tuberculosis. I don't think Hauptman was innocent, I think he and Fish were both involved, perhaps others.

[Hard-up1]

There is no evidence he participated in the kidnapping, and by all accounts he loved the child.

My take on it would be that there is no DIRECT evidence, or any that would carry weight in any legal view of it. However, the documentary airs some plausible rationale why he might have done it, which might be termed indirect evidence, although certainly not strong.

The second link (to his daughter's interview) tells of her discovery of her siblings when she was at mid-life. She conjectures that her parents may have had a tacet agreement that it was OK, but even that is shrouded in the unknown. Her father was so notoriously tight-lipped that she apparently learned of his trans-Atlanctic crossing in her classroom at school. Wow.

[palbert]

You're not getting enough rest.

[csb999]

really wonder why really Lindbergh was such a major popular media figure . He was not the first ( 1927 ) by a long shot "Following WWI, aircraft technology continued to develop. Alcock and Brown crossed the Atlantic non-stop for the first time in 1919. The first commercial flights took place between the United States and Canada in 1919."

[rareboy]

People do love a mystery.

Sometimes though, the simplest explanation is the right one.

[Keeland]

Lindbergh was a first-class SOB, a Nazi sympathizer so enamoured of Hitler he was awarded the Iron Cross.

[Hard-up1]

really wonder why really Lindbergh was such a major popular media figure . He was not the first ( 1927 ) by a long shot "Following WWI, aircraft technology continued to develop. Alcock and Brown crossed the Atlantic non-stop for the first time in 1919. The first commercial flights took place between the United States and Canada in 1919."

Two things: it was the American penchant for self-promotion, and the fact that it was a solo feat. Alcock and Brown was a team effort, as needed by the long flight, so Lindbergh's accomplishment was reminiscent of the daredevil do of barnstormers and other risk-takers of the era.

The Ortieg Prize was the actual incentive for the crossing, and it was available only to Allied pilots, which is ironic considering Lindbergh's subsequent Nazi sympathies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orteig_Prize

Sometimes though, the simplest explanation is the right one.

I tend to be skeptical myself without something more convincing. Still, the whole polygamy thing is so amazing. Two families are not that rare to keep secret from one another, but four is truly worthy of the asshole moniker.

[palbert]

If you're getting enough rest you should stay out of the sun. This is not the Hardup we know and love. Suggest a hat to combat these demented theories.

[Benvolio]

My take on it would be that there is no DIRECT evidence, or any that would carry weight in any legal view of it. However, the documentary airs some plausible rationale why he might have done it, which might be termed indirect evidence, although certainly not strong.

The second link (to his daughter's interview) tells of her discovery of her siblings when she was at mid-life. She conjectures that her parents may have had a tacet agreement that it was OK, but even that is shrouded in the unknown. Her father was so notoriously tight-lipped that she apparently learned of his trans-Atlanctic crossing in her classroom at school. Wow.

Motive, if proven can be circumstantial evidence. But the motive itself must be proven, not merely speculative, counter intuitive and contrary to experience.

[bike10]

In those days was rush to judgement.

[palbert]

I've heard more obscure theories. But then I've not been here long enough to know all the crazies.

[Hard-up1]

What is your meaning, Bike10? The judgement was not against Mr. Lindbergh.

And to my friend Palbert, these aren't my demented theories. I'm just asking who, if anyone, believes he may have been involved?

The polygamy thing is proven. I've already posted that I'm skeptical of the kidnapping involvement without evidence.