Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann

After thoroughly researching this murder and after reading several books on this subject, I find Scaduto's book to be the most factual and well researched. I know many of those who've written reviews of this book don't want to believe the facts presented in this book, but it doesn't take much effort to discover that they are, in fact, the truth. Excellent, easy to read book. I highly recommend it!!

Anthony Scaduto was a police reporter for the 'New York Post' who specialized in articles on organized crime. In April 1973 he was told about "the true Lindbergh Story". Scaduto never believed in Hauptmann's guilt from childhood, and his later experiences as a police reporter. His three years of research convinced him that Hauptmann was innocent of the kidnapping and was executed as a scapegoat for a cover-up. This very readable book explains his initial investigation and background in Chapter 1. Scaduto tells about the murders of Dr. and Mrs. Nimer (pp.20-26), and how it influenced his approach to this case. Chapter 2 summarizes the kidnapping, and how this story overshadowed the real economic and social ills of that time. It helped to sell radios (p.36). Pages 43-44 tell how the upper class readily used organized crime when it suited their purposes. The first ransom note was photographed and copies of it were distributed to identify its penmanship (this would allow forgery). After the body of a child was found, Parker asked if it could have decomposed so much in 72 days (p.65)? If the child was killed when kidnapped, why no bloodstains? There was a difference between the folding of bills passed earlier, and those in Hauptmann's possession (p.98). Anna Hauptmann gave Richard his alibi for the two days (p.104). Lindbergh's identification of Hauptmann convinced the jury of his guilt (p.124). The problem in this is described on pages 125-127. The plaster cast of "John's" footprint didn't match Hauptmann (p.137). The problem of handwriting experts is explained (pp.142-143); they're not infallible. The ladder found at the Lindbergh home was made by an amateur, not a skilled carpenter (p.167). Was Hauptmann investigated in 1933 and cleared by his handwriting (p.171)? Page 180 explains the trick use of a 3/4" chisel by Koehler. Expert witnesses testify for the side that pays them (p.182). Could Hauptmann's employment records have been tampered (p.189)? The judge reviewed the facts of the case against Hauptmann (p.219). The jury quickly found Hauptmann guilty, but were delayed by considering a recommendation of mercy (p.220). Scaduto wonders about the search in the attic; could it have been delayed (p.227)? Chapter 12 tells of the abduction of Paul Wendel, and his confession to the kidnapping. The baby slept (p.243). To find another man guilty of the crime would damage the career of the prosecutor, and others (p.253). This story should enlighten you to the politics of justice. Could Wendel have just made it up? Everything he said was known to the public (p.261). An affidavit told where Hauptmann was on March 1, 1932 (p.280). Was there corroboration for this? There is a "retraction" on page 283. Scaduto examined the copies of the employment records (pp.284-285). There was a problem with eyewitnesses Perrone and Condon. Chapter 15 lists the problems with the original description of "John" and Hauptmann (pp.310-311). Chapter 16 tells of other discrepanci

Mr. Scaduto's book tends to be all over the place, but the fact is that he has presented a concise, literate and very compelling case for Richard Hauptmann (he abandoned the name Bruno after he left Germany.) Mr. Scaduto presents evidence that shows Mr. Hauptmann was at best, a peripheral accessory to the Lindbergh kidnapping. However, all the evidence taken together is so compelling that you must realize that Mr. Hauptmann was just "in the wrong place at the wrong time." The police and New Jersey prosecutor's had a high profile kidnapping case and they wanted to solve it fast. The police and prosecutor David Wilentz were not above manufacturing evidence in order to solve this case. Mr. Scaduto clearly points out that racism (Mr. Hauptmann was a German emigre and Mr. Lindbergh was a staunch conservative) was a factor; Richard Hauptmann was an experienced carpenter; it is not locical that he would have built a ladder that badly; his counsel was a drunken has-been lawyer; there were plenty of other suspects that the police rejected. Lindbergh heard only two words two years earlier from the kidnapper and he was able to identify them as Mr. Hauptmann's? That is what my father would call "a crock of ----." The evidence that Mr. Scaduto has presented has withstood the test of time and only the most conservative of people really believe that Mr. Hauptmann was guilty. This book was worth my time and I believe it will be worth yours. I also recommend Ludovic Kennedy's book "The Airman and The Carpenter."

this was a good book. i'd like to get that out before hand. i think that in real life, the actual event was more mysterious and intriging. while i'm not rating a movie, i think that an event that captured an entire nation's attention and sombody accused of killing "the eaglet" that everybody hated, could have used a better book. i would suggest reading about the "Lindbergh Kidnapping" before you read this book, so you don't get lost.