Forum Member on Travel Channel

[emma1231]

(06-02-2018 09:43 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Richard,
[i][i]I know the FBI didn't work the case but they doubted that Bruno was the man or if he was part of a crew. Any thoughts?[/i][/i]

First of all, the investigators always felt that more than one person was involved. But they were under great pressure to solve the case. So when they got their hands on Bruno, who, after all had $14 G of the ransom money hidden away, they changed their story and said he was a loner. It tended to take the pressure off them and supposedly "solve" the case. (Later, a NJ Governor started asking questions that really angered the prosecution.)

There is air-tight proof that Bruno was involved in the kidnapping in some way, simply because he definitely build the kidnap ladder. About seven or more years ago, Mr. Kelvin Kerega re-examined wood expert Arthur Koehler's research and improved upon it tenfold. He never published his findings, unfortunately. I have a copy of his report. His conclusions DID appear on a TV show about trials a few years ago.
You can argue about whether or not Bruno wrote any or all of the kidnap notes. You can argue that his friend Izzy Fish had the ransom money and simply asked Bruno to hide it until he returned from visiting his parents in Europe. (He never returned, leaving Bruno holding the bag.) But you can't argue with the wood evidence. (There's a theory that the entire attic floor of the house he lived in, where wood for the ladder came from, was re-done in an effort to frame him, but it is extremely weak. The more it is pursued it, the weaker it gets.) There is just too much evidence that he was in on it, and that he wasn't simply an extortionist trying to capitalize on it and lead Lindbergh and his go-between, Dr. Condon, into thinking he was the kidnapper. It's a complex case, with unanswered questions about whether or not it was an inside job*, how the kidnapper could have gotten through the window with the ladder placed so far to the right of the window; how Bruno could have been in NJ if, as he claimed, he was picking up his wife that night from her waitress job at a nearby bakery, etc; etc;it goes on and on, making the case so fascinating to me and many others. I noticed that in the TV re-enactment, the ladder was a little TOO far from the window than I thought it was when 1.) the kidnapping took place, and 2.) when the police did their re-enactment. However, I haven't looked into that yet.
* The new TV show was going to mention the case of a Lindbergh maid, Violet Sharp, and why she committed suicide just before she was going to be taken in for further questioning, but the show turned out to be too long and it had to be deleted. There is also another story they had to delete for time: I was taped at the cemetery explaining that Lindbergh heard the man who was about to received the ransom money calling out to Condon, "Hey doktor! Over here!" The program was going to later explain that Lindbergh subsequently identified the voice as Bruno's. It was a key piece of evidence. But could he have really firmly identified that voice after two + years? Or did he do so, as I suspect, only because the police assured him (before the wood evidence agst. Bruno had been conducted) that they got the right guy and just needed him to ID him so the prosecutors could get a conviction. (It sure did the trick!)