The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away

Very detailed and can’t believe this really happened! History in new light easy to read and understand

Excellent book detailing all the new information available on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. A very sad story as the baby was adorable and well loved by the family and caregivers. Bruno Hauptmann I felt was unjustly executed and did not receive a fair trial.All the evidence presented in the book points directly at Charles Lindbergh Sr who felt above the law and went ahead with sacrificing his own son for his eugenics beliefs. The death of beloved baby Charlie brought sadness to the Morrow/Lindbergh family for the rest of their lives, especially Anne’s Mother. May they continue to Rest in Peace.

I don’t think the theory presented is necessarily rock-solid per se, but it is fascinating and Lindbergh, to me, is at least guilty of a cover-up. The middle of the book drags a bit, and the typos here and there should be corrected. Overall, however, I would recommend the book to someone who’s new to the case (like I was).

Meticulously researched and documented. Clearly presented and highly readable. Not meant to sway the reader to the author’s opinion, just a concise laying-out of the finally available historical facts. There can be no argument that what Ms. Pearlman presents here are, in deed, the documented, historical facts.Reviewers who’ve reacted with great emotion in their defense of Lindbergh reveal their inability to see beyond generations of belief in his hero status. Certainly understandable. It’s not the first time people have been disappointed by the revealed truth of someone they perhaps wouldn’t have admired so deeply had the facts not been obscured. In this case obscured in large part by Lindbergh himself. If his defenders had been paying attention, however, to all the information that has been revealed about him since as early as the 1940’s- while the depth of the revelations in this book might have further surprised them- they certainly shouldn’t be as shocked as they appear to be. It is imperative to separate the man himself from the event that brought him to the world’s attention in the first place. Like many celebrities, once he achieved fame he forged ahead in the mistaken belief that he had more to offer than that original accomplishment. His unique moment in history, at the height of the Depression when people needed the comforting and exciting distraction of a hero, put him squarely in the right place at the right time.This work deserves a place in the vast library of the ‘Crime of the Century’ and, in fact, renders most previous offerings obsolete. Almost 100 years after this still-shocking event, this is a book with a theory that finally makes sense, by an author who makes a very compelling argument. As she states in her final sentence of the last page, ‘You be the judge.’ Now perhaps someone will write a biography of the ‘real’ Charles A. Lindbergh, a man who in reality was decidedly not a hero.

The spitefulness that goes on within the Lindbergh Kidnap Case community is glaringly evident by the wrongheaded and vicious review posted here by a person whose interest seems to be only in humiliating an author who obviously spent years of difficult research on this amazingly readable, non-fiction thriller. All the nasty nit-pickers come out whenever a new book on the LKC is published. It happened to Ahlgren and Monier in 1994 and today most of those hoax-bashers have had to admit A & M broke new ground and their theories made sense - but it took over two decades for that to happen. I was thrilled to find Judge Pearlman's book in agreement with many Ahlgren and Monier theories even though she has her own twist to the case. But, Lindbergh bulletin board posters get bent out of shape every time a new book is published. Obviously, there has been NO book on the case without errors. Regarding the question of the boy pictured on the tricycle, in my opinion, he is definitely not little Charlie or his father, the aviator. I would say this child is about 3-4 years old and Charlie didn't live to be more than 20 months so Mrs. Hoage and the UCLA archivist were wrong. The hydrocephalus theory in Ms Pearlman's book is still valid even if that photo is completely wrong. In spite of this error, I have been greatly impressed by a book that finally does what every author has tried desperately not to do - present a theory. I have given the book 5 stars, not just for its page-turning readability but, for its originality and honesty (this is NOT a family authorized or FBI backed book like a few others on this case ) but mostly for its important perspective on Carrel and eugenics in connection with Lindbergh and his child. I am grateful for the author's extensive research done on Carrel (whose papers I went through at Georgetown only to find, much to my horror, that Father Durkin removed lots of Carrel's papers and simply inserted little hand written notes about the docs he removed!) As for Breckinridge, he's never really gotten much attention in any book until now. Most intriguingly, Judge Pearlman offers her version of a blow by blow scenario based on the evidence she has presented. I was horrified by her scenario of such a coldblooded father and his crackpot genius colleague and will have to think more about it though it is difficult, for its sheer horror, to even imagine such a crime as she describes. It's terribly shocking - but, in my opinion, no one will regret reading this book. Anyone interested in Lindbergh, for whatever reason, should be praising Ms. Pearlman for her intrepid attempt to enlighten us about her voyage into such very dark corners - (as Melsky correctly phrases it).

This book explains in great detail the story of Charles Lindbergh and the death of Charlie. The story of Charlie is tragic but even more so is the trial and execution of Bruno Hauptmann. Looking at the evidence in an objective way makes a person wonder how an innocent man could be convicted and put to death. The appalling part of this story is that the same thing is happening today and could end in the death of democracy. Real facts, honesty, integrity and character must be the foundation of our justice system and no person should be above the law. All people deserve a fair and just trial but the evidence must be complete and based on facts - not lies. It is never too late to admit the wrongs of the past.

Ms Pearlman covers the Lindbergh case in three phases: a review of Lindbergh's life, an account of the child's abduction, then a proposed theory of the child's ultimate fate.The coverage of Lindbergh's life is excellent, leaving no stone unturned to reveal the many quirks in this strange man's character. He emerges as an anti-social loner, a cold man who derived pleasure from often cruel "practical jokes." He relished the secret knowledge which is at the core of such behaviour. "Only I know there's kerosene in the drinking glass" etc. In spite of his limited education he was convinced he "knew best" running his home with rigid rules on meal times and child care. He had few close friends and viewed social activity as a waste of time.It is suggested that Lindbergh himself removed the child from the crib. The ladder was an unused prop, a deliberate misdirection for the investigators. His belief in eugenics meant his son's life had to end because of his severe disabilities: hydrocephalus, abnormally large head, rickets, and in some accounts deafness and mutism. Some of these problems could be the direct result of the Lindberghs' pre-natal flight across America at high altitude, without oxygen, enduring engine noise and fumes. Anne Lindbergh in her seventh month of pregnancy fell unconscious twice, was distressed and had to be carried from the plane. If the public had made the link between this irresponsibility and the child's disabilities Lindbergh's reputation would go from hero to zero.The only part of the author's kidnap scenario which I find jarring is the introduction of several characters as knowing or un-knowing helpers. Breckinridge, Fisch, and gangster Ownie Madden are mentioned in this regard. This would leave Lindbergh open to future blackmail or betrayal. Secondly, it was unnecessary; after dispatching the child with, for example morphine, he could have put the body in the trunk of his car in the garage. Who would dare suggest looking in there? Finally Lindbergh was most definitely not a team player; he preferred to act alone and in total secrecy as in his "jokes."The final part of the book proposes that little Charlie was used by Carel and Lindbergh for vivisection experimentation on organs etc. It is grim reading indeed and will be resisted by many readers with a 21st century perspective. However, we are not Lindbergh and Carel who were both committed eugenics/vivesection enthusiasts in 1932 working in a climate where such things were widely discussed and often given legal support. So this should not be dismissed based on our natural horror alone. The theory is supported by reports from eminent pathologists who have scoured witness statements and official records from 1932. They conclude from this that there was evidence of surgical organ removal and subsequent chemical treatment of the face. But if this is apparent from the written records it would have been be glaringly obvious from an examination of the body itself in 1932. The conspirators took the enormous risk that a competent pathologist would spot such unnatural intervention and awkward questions would follow. For this reason and others I reserve judgement on the vivisection theory.Ms Pearlman has given us a real page-turner. The most readable account of this infamous crime which I have read to date. My enjoyment in reading this book was in no way reduced by my doubts on some of the theories advanced.The "Lindbergh did it" perspective has gained traction in recent decades. Wisely, Ms Pearlman does not claim to have solved the "Crime of the Century" but she has left this reader in no doubt who should indeed have been "Suspect No 1."She says "Lindbergh could have shot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and gotten away with it."I would add: "Hauptmann could have been dining with J Edgar Hoover on March 1st 1932, and he still would have been convicted."

For those like me, fascinated by the Lindbergh kidnapping, this book delves into the lives of the baby's parents, like nothing else I've read.My only criticism, if you can call it that, is that I feel the author having detailed so much of their earlier lives, could have followed up with a detailed analysis of their later lives.Overall though, a well-researched and interesting book that I had trouble putting down.

Very detailed description of Lindbergh's life, before, during and after the alleged kidnapping of his son. Easy to understand why he should have been the number 1 suspect.

Well-written book with a disturbing conclusion. Paints a clear picture of the sociopathic Lindbergh and the injustice of Hauptmann’s trial. Interesting to see a wife grappling with such a man. The baby is left out in the cold, but she does nothing. She comes across as intelligent, empathetic, but too compliant with her husband. Wonder if Anne Lindbergh ever suspected her husband.