Interesting parallels

[LizbethTurner]

I've recently been studying a couple of other old murder cases. The reactions of the players in those cases are intriguingly similar to the reactions - or lack thereof - of Lizzie and others in the Borden murders.

1. The "Road Hill Murder" of 3-year-old Saville Kent which occurred in England in 1860. http://www.amazon.com/Suspicions-Mr-Whi ... 0802715354 This murder was just as sensational in its time as the Borden case was here, and it was also ultimately unsolved. In this case the problem was that there were too many suspects. In parallel with the Borden case, however, the investigation was muddied from the start by contamination of the crime scene and by the assumption that it had to have been done by a stranger. By the time a family member was suspected and charged, a lot of evidence was missing for one reason or another. Suspects and witnesses had been allowed to talk to each other continually, for weeks, and to get their stories straight. Eventually one of the daughters was charged with the murder, but key information was suppressed and witnesses changed their stories and/or omitted previous testimony. Sound familiar?

2. The Lindbergh baby kidnapping of 1932. Many - perhaps most - investigators now feel that the person who was executed for the kidnapping was not guilty. There is a lot of evidence to support this. Some investigators believe that the murderer - with or without intent - was Charles Lindbergh himself, and there is quite a bit of strong circumstantial evidence to support this theory as well. Unfortunately we will most likely never know the truth because - once again - the investigation was botched. Lindbergh took charge of it from the start, refused to allow the FBI to come in, and when his son's body was found he had it cremated the very next day. Again, with the suspect who was executed, vital information was changed or omitted entirely. Some information against him was entirely made up. To my mind he was clearly the scapegoat.

As I was typing this I thought of the Jon Benet Ramsey case. There's another one that won't be solved because of a botched investigation.

These cases and others point to the fact that without scientific investigations many crimes will never be solved. It's all very frustrating, isn't it?

[Allen]

After researching the Lindbergh case, to my mind, I always thought there was more than enough evidence to point to the nanny being involved. Especially the fact that nobody outside of the family was even supposed to be aware that they were staying at the New Jersey home during this time.

[LizbethTurner]

The nanny is an obvious suspect (in the Road Hill case as well) and some of her responses were a little dodgy, but I think it was Lindbergh himself. Just a month or so prior to the actual kidnapping he had hidden the child in a closet, told his wife and the nanny the boy was missing, and let them panic for a while before telling them what he'd done.

The more you research Lindbergh, the more obvious it becomes that his elevator didn't go to the top floor.

[Angel]

Pot- kettle

[SallyG]

Amen

[augusta]

No one would dare suspect Lindbergh without any evidence, and I guess he made sure nobody got any. I read about when he hid the baby and only revealed where he was for two hours. It was sick. Along with his throwing a glass of water at the dining room table at his wife as some sort of "joke". And when he was in some organization when he was young (Army? Reserves?), a few fellows played a joke on him. It was something harmless like short sheeting his cot or something. He played one back on them that could have caused their - or one of their - death.

Yes, that one woman who worked in their house fell all apart when she was questioned by the police and committed suicide. Maybe she helped Lindbergh with a kidnapping "joke" and figured she could not tell. (Violet Sharpe?)

Richard Hauptmann's wife, Anna, died not all that long ago, and she never stopped trying to clear her husband's name. In parts, his trial was a joke. But he did have the money hidden. And Fish, the man he said asked him to hold onto some of it, always sounded true - but would he have asked him to hang onto all of it?

IF Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping, how would Hauptmann be in possession of the money? What caused Hauptmann not to tell if that was the case?

I am reading the story of HH Holmes, and people went into his "castle" not long after he was arrested and traipsed all over it. One guy bought it and was going to turn it into a museum, but the top two stories burned.

[SallyG]

The Lindbergh case is very interesting and deserves some in depth reading. There is some feeling that Lindbergh perpetuated the entire thing himself as some sort of a fraud; also that he accidently dropped the baby and killed him in trying to play another "joke" on his wife by hiding the baby. As far as Hauptmann, it's said that he actually found the money in a house owned by Fish, and decided to keep it since Fish owned him money. Lots of theories....and very interesting reading. It's not as cut and dried as I previously thought.

[Allen]

If Lindbergh was responsible I get the same feeling, that it started out as a joke that went horribly wrong. He may never have intended to harm his son at all. In which case he most likely would have grieved over his loss just as much as everyone else did. I wonder how much his wife knew if this was the case? They not only remained married but went on to have more children. Would a woman have more children with a man she thought murdered her son? How and why Hauptmann came by the ransom money is truly a mystery. But I never believed in his guilt. There is more doubt raised in my mind by the evidence than there is certainty of his guilt. The famous ladder is the first piece of bogus evidence. It was shown Hauptmann never could have descended that ladder carrying a child in his arms. The design of it was out of wack. The way the rungs were spaced it was estimated that only a very tall person could have climbed it comfortably. I had always looked at Violet Sharpe as my prime suspect because of her strange behavior and statements. But I guess it is possible she may have acted just as strangely if she were covering for Mr. Lindbergh. But if she were only covering for him, why did she commit suicide?

[patsy]

Interesting parallels. I remember reading about the Kent case and somewhere I read about how she (Constance the daughter) finally confessed years later. Not sure if I have that in a book or read it online. And beside hearing that there was speculation that Lindbergh was involved in his baby's kidnapping, I also read in a book years ago that there was some suspicion of a relative (maybe a sister in law) who did something to the baby either purposely or accidently and it was covered up.

I never thought Bruno did the crime.

[xyjw]

This looks like a pretty well done episode. It is from Season 4 of Deadly Women on Investigation Discovery.



http://investigation.discovery.com/vide ... ecret.html

[woundedtomato]

In the Kent case, the 16 year old sister Constance was suspected when the boy was killed. She was cleared because the authorites didn't think a girl of 16 could have picked him up. They also were reluctant to admit a female could have killed him to start with. Boy have times changed, they wouldn't let her off now. She eventually got religious and at the age of 22 admitted to killing him with a straight razor I believe and disposing of his body.

In the Lindberg case the maid was suspected of being involved. She was never publicly charged. She did have some strange ties to suspected individuals. A book that came out in I believe the '90s leaned towards Lindberg covering up for someone by staging the kidnapping. I'm thinking it was Anns sister. Its been a few years since I read it.