New Twists on the Lindbergh Kidnapping: An Interview with Author Richard Cahill

Hauptmann's Ladder, a new book about the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Hauptmann’s Ladder, a new book about the Lindbergh kidnapping.

One of the most fascinating cases of the 20th century is the Lindbergh kidnapping. Eighty years later, experts still can’t agree if Bruno Richard Hauptmann was guilty of the kidnapping and death of Lindbergh’s son. And that confusion stems from the highly unusual nature of the evidence. The most damning was expert opinion about the ladder the kidnapper used to access the baby’s window: one piece of wood came from the flooring in Hauptmann’s attic.

Richard Cahill wrote Hauptmann's Ladder about the Lindberg Kidnapping.

Author Richard Cahill wrote a new book about the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Richard Cahill, a trial lawyer, recently published a landmark book about the Lindbergh case with Kent State University Press and kindly offered me an interview. In the course of his research, he went from believing in Hauptmann’s innocence to becoming convinced of his involvement. Hauptmann’s Ladder offers new evidence and a sharp legal analysis of the case.

Ann Marie: You took twenty years to research this book. That’s a significant portion of your life. Tell us why Lindbergh case fascinates you so much.

Richard Cahill: Researching the Lindbergh case was a hobby of mine for many years. Perplexed by books that reached totally different conclusions on the same evidence, I decided to find out for myself.

Where did you do your research?

There were numerous places I went to as part of my research. I went to the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives on several occasions (usually for days at a time).  I also went to the New York City Municipal Archives, the original Courthouse where the trial took place, the original Lindbergh home, the homes of John Condon and Hauptmann, and various sites of relevance to the case.  I also went to several libraries.  However, the lion’s share of my time was spent in my own home reviewing all of the documents and exhibits I have collected over the years and reading my collection of pretty much every book ever written on the subject.

Your book contains critical pieces of evidence that aren’t in other Lindbergh books. Tell us about some of them.

Charles Lindberg testifies at the trial. Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division, public domain.

Charles Lindberg testifying at the trial. Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division, public domain.

My book is the first to discuss the “table top confession” as well as the lease document found in Hauptmann’s possessions.  Though mentioned in other articles or blogs about the case, no other book has ever referenced them.

Also, my conclusions about Captain Richard Oliver likely being the man seen at the cemetery by Charles Lindbergh is an absolute first. That has never been argued in any publication.

My book also is the first to reference in any detail the so-called Hauptmann look-a-like that the defense considered calling at the trial.

These are a few examples.

A man unrelated to the Lindbergh kidnapping found the “table top confession” in 1948 while repairing a table purchased eight years earlier. It is a German text written on a block of wood that was used to reinforce the table’s joint. The anonymous author claims he was the kidnapper, not Hauptmann. The block had five holes. Police declared it a fake but archived the block. In 2003, an archivist with the New Jersey State Police Museum and Archives discovered the five holes in the block aligned perfectly with the holes in the ransom notes that the kidnapper used as a signature. Richard Cahill will appear on my blog once more to discuss this unusual piece of evidence.

What was your biggest surprise in your research?

My biggest surprise?  Honestly, my biggest surprise was just how much evidence has been collected.  The archives contain more documents and evidence than one man could read in a year.

Wanted poster for the Lindbergh baby, public domain.

Wanted poster for the Lindbergh baby, public domain.

How did your experience as a trial lawyer help you investigate and analyze the evidence?

I think my experience as a lawyer played a substantial role in my investigation and writing.  For example, my knowledge of fingerprinting allowed me to conclude that the age old notion that the nursery was wiped clean was simply not true.  That had been almost accepted dogma of the case prior to my research.

Also, it allowed me insight into the trial tactics of both Wilentz and Reilly.  I think this allowed me to go beyond the trial transcript and give the readers a better play by play account.

Thanks, Richard, for sharing with us.

Guilty or innocent? Based on what you know about the case, what is your opinion of Bruno Richard Hauptmann?

Check out Richard Cahill’s book, Hauptmann’s Ladder, on Amazon.

Literature on point:

Richard T. Cahill, Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-Step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2014).

37 Comments

  1. Jill Swenson
    Mar 19, 2015

    Fascinating material. Looking forward to more about the table top confession. Hauptman may have been involved, but was he the kidnapper?

    • Ann Marie
      Mar 19, 2015

      That is one of the big questions about this case, Jill. Just to what extent was he involved, if at all? The evidence in this case is SO unusual it’s still controversial 80 years later.

    • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
      Mar 21, 2015

      My conclusion is that he did commit the crime. I do leave open the possibility that he might have had an accomplice though the evidence is not sufficient to prove it definitively.

  2. Brian
    Mar 20, 2015

    Were there still fingerprints to be found all these years later?

    • Ann Marie
      Mar 20, 2015

      No. At least not useful ones. Several books maintain that the baby’s room was wiped clean of prints. That has caused some to assume an inside job or that there was more than one kidnapper. The first investigator on the scene found prints, but none were usuable, i.e. they were smudged. The room was never wiped cleam.

      A second finger print expert who later examined additional items with different techniques found hundreds more. Hauptmann’s fingerprints were not found on the ladder. But the kidnapper was probably wearing gloves. Seven unidentified prints were found on the later. Some say that alone points to Hauptmann’s innocence. But hundred of people had handled the ladder before the second expert lifted prints, so it’s hard to say.

      • Michael Melsky
        Apr 4, 2015

        I’d have to disagree with your response Ann Marie. When evaluating the fingerprint evidence one has to look at, and take into consideration, ALL of the available sources. Once this is done it’s important to consider the circumstances and/or variables which surround these differing sources all of which need to be considered then applied accordingly. For example, if the trial testimony differs from the earlier source material it would be important to know ‘why’ those differences exist. Fact is, by the time of the trial, the State was pursuing a specific narrative. This narrative needed certain facts to exist which did not exist in earlier sources. So what Researchers will see is that “no indication of prints” mutates into “no useful prints” or “smudges” by the time of the trial.

        Furthermore, when the prints on the ladder were discovered, some were later identified with those known to have handled it. Others were not. So since Hauptmann’s prints were not found among them we often hear his prints were either contaminated OR he wore gloves in order to explain it away. Both are possible, yet, why doesn’t anyone address the print which was found behind rung 11? This was never matched to Authorities, and could only have been made by someone assembling or disassembling the ladder.

      • Ann Marie
        Apr 5, 2015

        Michael, your point about the print on rung 11 is an excellent one. My main concern as a prosecutor (or investigator) would be whether all the law enforcement personnel who handled the ladder had been eliminated; there were so many. As Richard Cahill notes in his book (pp. 59-60), the ladder was handled by hundreds of people between March 1-13, including the police, wood experts, and the press. If all those people were eliminated, that remaining print could have been from an accomplice. But it also could have been from an innocent person who had handled the wood before the ladder was constructed, e.g. a lumberyard employee.

        At trial, Frank Kelly, the first investigator to dust for prints, testified that he found no “fingerprints of value.” Lindbergh testified that Kelly found smudges. Dr Hudson found additional prints in the nursery using a more sophisticated technique. Are you suggesting, in your first paragraph, that their trial testimony was tainted by the state’s prosecution theory? I’m not sure I understood your point.

        Thanks for commenting. What’s so amazing about this case is how unusual, murky, and controversial the evidence is, even after all these years. That’s one of the things that makes the Lindbergh investigation so fascinating.

    • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
      Mar 21, 2015

      The ladder and the nursery were checked for prints. Unfortunately, the initial person (Inv. Kelly) was not particularly skilled at it. Also, the prints on the ladder were compromised when the police had to move it prior to processing it because they failed to properly preserve the scene.

      • Michael Melsky
        Apr 5, 2015

        Hi Richard.

        What evidence in particular do you draw from to conclude Kelly was not skilled in checking for prints? I’ve often seen this argument used, yet, I never see an explanation as to exactly why he was raising prints using the exact same methods elsewhere in house.

        And to reply to Ann Marie’s question above (no reply button there) … I do agree with Richard that many people handled the ladder but that is a simple excuse for a complicated matter. There’s more information out there then most people realize so I think drawing a rock-solid conclusion based on the one someone happens to like is a huge mistake. And yes, what’s testified to at the trial by many of the Prosecution’s Witnesses was heavily influenced by the State’s theory. The proof is revealed once you compare testimony to earlier source documentation. And Kelly’s testimony isn’t the only place this happens which is why, again, the testimony must be cross-referenced and should only be accepted as one source when a myriad of other and earlier sources should be considered.

      • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
        Apr 5, 2015

        Michael,

        Kelly’s skill is in question and has been questioned by numerous authors and researchers.

        There mere fact that Dr. Erastus Mead Hudson found so many more prints than he did is but one piece of evidence. Kelly testified that he found no prints when he processed the ladder, yet Hudson found a large number of them.

        You and I have a substantial disagreement which I think permeates your entire statement on this blog.

        You have made clear to me your position on another Internet forum that the State Police properly maintained the crime scene. I respectfully, but vehemently disagree with that position.

        Reporters swarmed the crime scene to the point that the police had to move the ladder away from the position where it was found before it could even be photographed. Without use of gloves, they brought the ladder into the house even before it was processed for prints.

        I can tell you as a former prosecutor that that is a MAJOR problem in any investigation or prosecution. Potential fingerprints were compromised or destroyed. The scene was compromised. That is not a theory or mere opinion. That is an undeniable fact.

        The fingerprint evidence, especially on the ladder, was compromised and of little use.

        Some of the officers put in their initial reports and to some local media sources that they maintained the scene, but frankly they were just covering their behinds. Would they really tell the newspapers that they goofed up the scene?

        During trial and in later statements, they eventually admitted that they did not in fact maintain the scene. Some of Reilly’s best moments during the trial were when he destroyed police witnesses by pointing out their failure to maintain the scene, their failure to measure or photograph footprints, etc.

        Lt. Bornmann noted in his recorded interview years later that when he and DeGaetano came out of he Lindbergh home, the entire scene was swarming with reporters who were touching the kidnap ladder.

        It is neither logical nor correct to assert that the police maintained the crime scene. They did not.

        Finally, I have looked at a hell of a lot more than just the initial police reports and the trial testimony. I am 43 years old and have been researching this case since I was 18. Additionally, I am trained as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and civil litigator. I know what to look for in a criminal investigation and what constitutes a mistake.

        I approached this case without a dog in the fight, meaning I did not care if Hauptmann was guilty or innocent. I just wanted to find out the truth.

        The sources I chose to accept and the sources I chose to reject were based upon logic, common sense, and my years of training concerning criminal trials.

        There were always be aspects of the case that will remain a mystery. However, one thing about the case is not a mystery. The police bungled the crime scene.

  3. Wayne
    Mar 25, 2015

    I believe any new book that opens dialogue on the Lindbergh kidnapping case is a worthwhile endeavor.

    Having said that, I think it’s also extremely important to get the facts right and to give credit where credit is due.

    1) The “table top confession” was extensively explored in Lloyd Gardner’s exemplary The Case That Never Dies (2003), pages 413-414. There are even two photographs of the table on page 210.

    2) In 2002, Mark Falzini, archivist at the NJ State Police museum, was the first to line up the holes with the ransom notes. The table does have five holes, but only three holes in the table match the three holes in the ransom notes. Not “five holes” as claimed in the above interview. All of the ransom notes are available for viewing online.

    • Ann Marie
      Mar 25, 2015

      Thanks for pointing that out, Wayne. Lloyd Gardner should get the credit where credit is due. I discuss Mark Flazini in my post on the table confession.

    • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
      Mar 25, 2015

      Wayne,

      Lloyd Gardner did reference the table top confession in his book. I should have written that my book was the first to explore this evidence in detail. The words I chose for this interview were not precise.

      But, to make the record crystal clear, Lloyd Gardner did mention the evidence first. However, I offered the first detailed analysis in a book including my conclusions on its veracity and importance to the case. (There are some newspaper articles, a documentary, and an article by Mark Falzini, the Archivist at the New Jersey State Police Archives.)

      • Wayne
        Mar 28, 2015

        Richard,

        Thanks for the clarification. I see on the Amazon review section that you did acknowledge and recognize Mr. Gardner’s The Case That Never Dies back on July 22, 2004 when you reviewed the book with one star saying “…no significant discussion on the “tabletop confession” …”

        Personally, I think he unraveled and covered the tabletop discussion very well in three pages, but I guess we are talking apples and oranges.

        Let me ask you this. I am 100% convinced that BRH built the 3-section ladder and he, of course, was found with almost 1/3 of the ransom money.

        I’m reading, and enjoying, your book…but I still can not understand how BRH could have possibly known that the Lindbergh baby was going to be in Highfields for the first time ever on a Tuesday night, how BRH could have known where the nursery was, that the window BRH entered was the only one in the room with a warped, unlatch-able shutter, and that Lindbergh had instituted an 8 to 10 pm lockdown on the nursery so that no one was allowed to enter then.

        Without those answers, I guess we are to assume that BRH was simply the luckiest criminal in history?

    • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
      Mar 26, 2015

      Wayne,

      As to your second point, the table had five holes. The notes each had three. Mark compared the five holes to the three holes on one of the ransom notes and found a match.

      The three holes running vertically are equidistant to the holes running horizontally. Thus, if you compare the holes against the left, middle, and right hole, they match. If you do the same thing with the top, middle, and bottom hole, they match.

      • Ann Marie
        Mar 26, 2015

        The error about the number of holes was mine; I have since corrected that. Thanks for the discussion!

      • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
        Apr 10, 2015

        Wayne,

        You ask excellent questions. There are some things in the case we will never know for sure. Your questions cover some of these types of things. I will offer some educated speculation, however.

        Since Hauptmann never confessed or discussed his role in the case (unless you accept one book that contends that Hauptmann confessed to a cell mate), we do not know what he knew.

        I can tell you this. The house was not completely finished. For example, there were few if any curtains. Anyone with a pair of field glasses could have watched the house from the nearby woods and been able to learn the location of the nursery window.

        For example, we know that Betty Gow held the baby up to look out the window to see his mother walking by outside earlier on the afternoon of 3/1/32. Anyone watching would likely conclude this was the nursery.

        Is this exactly what happened? I do not know. It is as good a theory as any.

        As to how he knew the Lindberghs were there, I tend to take a different tack on it because I am not certain he did know.

        Those of us who research the case know that the Lindberghs were not normally at the Sourland Estate on Tuesdays. However, the Lindberghs did not advertise this fact. The public did not know their weekly schedule.

        Newspapers reported about the Lindberghs moving in to their new home. I have not found one that contemporaneously advertised how frequently the Lindberghs were there. There could be some, but I have not seen them.

        I think it is very possible that it was merely an unfortunate coincidence that the Lindberghs were there that fateful Tuesday.

        When you examine true crime, you find so many tragic cases of people coincidentally being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think that is what happened here.

        Could I be wrong? You bet. I think this is why this case is so continually fascinating. There are some areas of the crime that invite educated speculation. I tried to avoid that in my book which is why I do not go into great detail about possible accomplices, though I do discuss it. It is a lot of fun though to pontificate though.

        Thanks for the questions, Wayne.

  4. M Sudhakar
    Mar 25, 2015

    I have not read Cahill’s book, yet I know about Bolliard’s table. How? I read about it in Lloyd Gardner’s book, The Case That Never Dies. I hope Mr. Cahill will acknowledge his mistake in claiming that his book was the first to discuss the table and give credit where credit is due.

    • Ann Marie
      Mar 25, 2015

      Thanks for pointing that out, M Sudhakar. I’ll bring it to Mr. Cahill’s attention.

  5. Michael Melsky
    Apr 5, 2015

    Richard,

    I was just trying to understand your point. For me, other Researchers and/or Authors can say this all they want but I’d like to see the answer as to why Kelly was raising prints in the other rooms, and on other items, using the exact same methods (Black and Aluminum Powders) without any issue. I think that’s important because we have comparables to properly judge this statement.

    As you noted in your book, Dr. Hudson’s method using silver nitrate was new at the time. This worked on the ladder, not because Kelly didn’t know what he was doing but rather because of the method itself. Wouldn’t you agree? In fact, Dr. Hudson taught Kelly how to use this method and he took it from there once he did.

    Next, we do disagree about the crime scene – to a point. It was comprimised after a certain period of time and not before. I am certainly no Prosecutor, but I don’t think I need to be in order to read and rely on all available sources to come to this conclusion. For example, Reporters who were attempting to assist Hoffman during his reinvestigation certainly weren’t trying to cover the NJSP’s butt, so it’s important to take these sources then compare them against whatever exists.

    I think we’ll both agree that timing is everything here. So it seems to be a difference of opinion based upon the actual sources.

    We know, for example, Bornmann’s prints were on the ladder because they were later identified as his against those prints which were raised by Dr. Hudson’s silver nitrate solution. And while I agree that Bornmann’s 1983 interview is something to consider, I do not agree it holds the weight you are personally assigning it considering it involves his memories from 1932. I personally believe written reports from that decade are more reliable.

    Anyway, I think you have misunderstood my points and intent. And I also realize it’s hard to consider a source when or if one hasn’t seen it. I know the amount of time it takes to properly research this case and I respect the amount of time you’ve put into it. I did not intend to come here to debate because I don’t think this is the proper venue so this will be my last comment.

    • Ann Marie
      Apr 6, 2015

      Even though this is your last comment, Michael, thanks for posting. In a case as controversial as this one, agreement is impossible. But discussion is educational, and your points were helpful.

    • Richard T. Cahill Jr.
      Apr 10, 2015

      Michael,

      My comments concern your positions on the case that I disagree with.

      Please be clear that I have great respect for you and your contributions to the research of the case. Your discussion board offers great opportunities for people to ask questions and discuss the case.

      I can get very animated about this case. I am passionate about it. I try as much as possible, however, to maintain personal respect for people who offer positive theories and honestly research the case … like you.

      There are many people who just go on the attack and say nasty and derogatory things against people who do not hold lock step to their personal theory. (I am sure you have encountered these things too!!)

      Thanks for your comments and questions. I think it added to this web site discussion.

      And while I am at it, thank you Ann Marie for posting these 2 interviews and giving my book such a plug. I am indebted to you.

  6. Richard Sloan
    Apr 5, 2015

    I found this Lindbergh discussion very worthwhile. I’m a student of the case, but haven’t dabbled in it for a few years now. (I used to conduct bus tours of sites in the Bronx related to the case. I met Mr. Melsky once. He’s a brilliant student of the case. I have yet to find the time to read my copy of Mr. Cahill’s book, but I shall.) ) Funny thing — I went to your site because (and forgive me if I ever did a few years ago; I have a gut feeling I may have!) you posted on another blog about Lincoln assassination eyewitness Sam’l J. Seymour! I am a student of that case, too, and continue to dabble in that one. (I give a talk about Lincoln’s NYC funeral.) I am really writing to ask you if you ever heard from Mr. Seymour’s heirs when you posted that you’d like to write something at length about him. Keep up your good work here!

    • Ann Marie
      Apr 6, 2015

      Thanks for posting and for your compliment, Richard. No, I haven’t yet posted anything about Samuel Seymour yet, and the main reason why is that I haven’t found any photos yet that I’m convinced are in the public domain. My attempt to reach his descendant via that one history site has thus far proved fruitless. I haven’t given up, though. I’ve been too busy to search further (I got a book contract for my German assassination/Robert E. Lee story and have diverted most of my energies into writing that).

  7. Mickey
    May 5, 2015

    Did Arthur Koehler prove that the planer marks found on parts,of the ladder were indeed from Hauptmann’s planer found in his garage? If this is true together with the fact that rail 16 of the ladder was once a part of Hauptmann’s attic, I can’t see how he wasn’t involved. I have read several books on the case and found Richard’s to be the most thorough.

    • Ann Marie
      May 6, 2015

      That’s an excellent question, Mickey. I will check what literature I have and get back to you.

  8. Richard T. Cahill Jr.
    May 6, 2015

    Mickey,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Yes, he did. Hauptmann’s plane had a nick in the blade that left a distinct mark on the wood. Koehler demonstrated this at the trial.

  9. Kurt Tolksdorf
    Jul 4, 2015

    Why does every student of the case assume that because Rail 16 was cut from the attic above Hauptmann’s apartment, it must have been he who did the cutting? According to Mrs. Hauptmann, whom I interviewed in 1993, she and her husband were often absent from the apartment for hours at a time. Anyone having access to Hauptmann’s apartment — say, through the intervention of his landlord, Max Rauch — could have cut Rail 16 from the attic.

    This is just one instance in which a key inference leading to Hauptmann’s guilt can easily be shown to be flawed. The remaining evidentiary items are subject to similar counter-arguments.

    • Ann Marie
      Jul 19, 2015

      Sorry for the late answer, Kurt. I’ve been on vacation.

      It’s fascinating that you interviewed Mrs. Hauptmann. Have you published the results of the interview anywhere? Because that would be a intriguing read!

      You are right that it’s possible that someone other than the Hauptmanns snuck into their house and stole rail 16 from the attic. But I’m not convinced it’s likely. The standard for scientific proof is different from the burden of proof in American criminal procedure; i.e. something can still be scientifically possible (even if unlikely) and yet beyond a reasonable doubt. In my mind, the evidence that rail 16 originated from the Hauptmann’s attic, coupled with the fact that Condon’s phone number and address were written on the inside of his closet, that Hauptmann spent ransom money, and that ransom money was found hidden in his garage, eliminate any doubts that are reasonable. That all those things happened without Hauptmann being involved are just too unlikely for me to be reasonable. As a prosecutor, I’d have no compunctions about taking this case to a jury.

      Other people have other opinions, I know, and that is one of those things that makes this case so fascinating.

      Thanks for commenting!

      • Kurt Tolksdorf
        Jul 22, 2015

        Why does every student of the case assume that because Condon’s address and telephone number were found written in the nursery room closet in Hauptmann’s apartment, it was he he wrote them there? Again, anyone having access to Hauptmann’s rooms — before or after his arrest — could’ve done the writing.

        Of course, when we take the fact that Rail 16 was cut from Hauptmann’s attic floor and put it alongside the closet writing, the natural tendency is to allow the two items to reinforce each other from an evidentiary standpoint. But this is, strictly speaking, a breach of logic; both Rail 16 and the closet writing could easily have been the work of a third party bent on framing Hauptmann.

        A similar argument applies to the so-called “discovery” of ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage. If, instead of paying the ransom to Hauptmann, Condon had handed it to a member of the [then-corrupt] New York Police Department, the latter could easily have planted a portion of it in Hauptmann’s garage thirty months later during their post-arrest “search.”

        To hold that easily-framed evidentiary items should be allowed to reinforce each other’s credibility — based on informal notions of “likelihood” — is only natural, but in the Lindbergh Case it facilitated the judicial murder of an innocent man and the concealment of the true perpetrators.

      • Ann Marie
        Jul 23, 2015

        Juries have to judge the liklihood of attorneys’ interpretations of the facts every day of the week. Although every explanation you offer is theoretically possible, each one is a stretch. Without more evidence pointing to Hauptmann being framed, it’s easy to imagine that jury members would find the framing interpretation beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, without further evidence, I’d find it hard to believe that a police officer would put his career and reputation on the line by getting involved in the “Crime of the Century” as an accessory after the fact. For a less-publicized crime, maybe, but not for one that the whole nation was following. But, like I said, different people see the evidence differently, and that’s what makes this case so fascinating.

        Thanks for posting!

  10. Kurt Tolksdorf
    Jul 23, 2015

    Actually, I am not throwing these ideas out just to be flippant. In 1998 I had two interviews with a man who had been Condon’s associate in the Thirties. It was he who told me that Hauptmann had been framed, that Condon had passed the ransom money to a member of the NYPD, and that they, in turn, had planted it in Hauptmann’s garage during the post-arrest search. He also disclosed that his brother, a New York City policeman, was part of the detail that secured Hauptmann’s garage, and that he (the brother) witnessed the planting of the money.

    Why did he make the disclosure to me after all these years? He had had a serious stomach operation not long before I found him, and I assume that he was in the process of coming to terms with his own mortality. I told him that I knew Hauptmann was innocent and deserved to “have his soul cleansed of the shame of the crime.” Three weeks later he called me back for a second interview in which he described the frame-up and its motive.

    • Ann Marie
      Jul 23, 2015

      That is quite interesting, Kurt. Have you published the results of your interviews? Because they are publication-worthy. And that’s the kind of evidence that could change people’s minds about the case.

      • Kurt Tolksdorf
        Jul 23, 2015

        I’m glad you find it interesting, Ann Marie. I have been working on my own book about the Lindbergh Crime for some time now. I do not yet know when it will be published, but I am certain that it will be quite surprising to those folks (like Mike Melsky and Richard Cahill of this board) who have followed the case and its intricacies for many years.

      • Ann Marie
        Jul 24, 2015

        Let me know when the book comes out, Kurt, because I’d love to interview you, too.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Table Block Confession in the Lindbergh Kidnapping - […] most recent – piece of evidence in the Lindbergh kidnapping is the “table block confession.” Last week attorney Richard…
  2. My Top Historical True Crime Books - […] Hauptmann’s Ladder: A Step-by-Step Analysis of the Lindbergh Kidnapping by Richard T. Cahill. The author is a criminal trial…
  3. A Year and a Half in Review: My Top Ten Historical Crime Posts - Ann Marie Ackermann's author website - […] New Twists on the Lindbergh Kidnapping: An Interview with Author Richard Cahill. The Lindbergh kidnapping is one of America’s…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!