“The crime of the century” investigation is going to be reopened by researchers, who just filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police to access evidence from the 1932 kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr., hoping modern DNA technology might finally resolve lingering questions about the infamous “Lindbergh baby” case.
Three plaintiffs—an American history professor from the University of Kansas, a retired New Jersey teacher, and a developmental psychologist—filed the lawsuit Friday in Mercer County Superior Court under the state’s open records law. They are represented by attorney Kurt Perhach, who has described the case as his motivation for becoming a lawyer.
“We live in a system that seeks justice and truth,” Perhach told The Free Press. “Most people who know the facts of this case believe there were multiple people involved, yet New Jersey executed Bruno Richard Hauptmann as the lone kidnapper.”
The researchers have specifically targeted envelopes containing ransom notes sent during the kidnapping of the 20-month-old son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. Despite payment of a nearly $70,000 ransom, the infant was murdered and his body was found in woods not far from the Lindbergh home in rural New Jersey.
Hauptmann, a German immigrant living in the Bronx, was convicted of the crime in 1935 and executed in 1936.
But questions about his guilt have persisted for decades, with some historians arguing the evidence against him was not overwhelming. Even Harold Hoffman, New Jersey’s governor at the time of the execution, reportedly had doubts about Hauptmann’s guilt.
The plaintiffs hope to use DNA technology recently employed to identify victims in the Gilgo Beach killings. According to genetic genealogist Colleen Fitzpatrick of Identifinders International, this technology could allow researchers to trace DNA on the envelopes to modern-day relatives of any potential co-conspirators in the kidnapping.
“It has only been recently that DNA testing and analysis have evolved with the potential of testing those envelopes to produce definitive investigative leads that could resolve lingering uncertainties,” Fitzpatrick stated in court filings.
The New Jersey State Police Museum, where all the Lindbergh case materials are kept, has argued that testing could damage the historical artifacts. Perhach dismisses this concern, noting that scientists can now test 2,000-year-old Egyptian mummies without damaging them.
His legal argument hinges on a 1981 executive order issued by then-Governor Brendan Byrne that made all Lindbergh case files available to the public for “inspection and examination.” Perhach contends that DNA testing is simply “a high-tech version of ‘inspection and examination'” that should be permitted under the order.
Some theories on the murder say someone close to Lindbergh might have been involved in the kidnapping. The lawsuit could potentially shed light on these theories if DNA testing reveals evidence of accomplices or indicates Hauptmann wasn’t involved at all.
If successful, the test could finally resolve one of America’s most notorious criminal cases using technology that wasn’t available during the original investigation or in the decades since Hauptmann’s execution.
“With modern forensics, we have an opportunity to test the saliva DNA to know who sent the ransom notes to Charles Lindbergh,” Perhach said. “Why wouldn’t everyone want to know who sent them? Why wouldn’t the state government of New Jersey?”