Modern Forensics Could Potentially Solve Century-Old Lindbergh Baby Case

Nearly 100 years after the notorious kidnapping and murder of American hero Charles Lindbergh’s baby, a team of enterprising sleuths is suing the state of New Jersey to reopen the infamous case.

The detectives insist that modern forensic techniques could finally prove the identity of the true killer — and the key to cracking the case lies in the postal stamps on various ransom notes.

“There are 15 total envelopes which contain 12 stamps and there’s still adhesive,” explains investigator Kurt Perhach. “Unless somebody in 1932 had the foresight to dab water on the adhesive, there’s a high likelihood that there’s still saliva attached to these pieces of paper.”

But the state of New Jersey is blocking DNA testing that could solve the mystery of who really swiped the famous aviator’s 20-month-old toddler, Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr., from his nursery in East Amwell, N.J., in March 1932 and bludgeoned him to death.

Perhach says the state has denied his request to permit DNA testing of case evidence, and fought his legal efforts. In April 2024, the primary kidnapping archive at the New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center was sealed.

The state has argued that DNA testing could damage the artifacts and claimed that temporarily shuttering the archive was necessary to give officials time to develop new protocols for future analysis.

As the world knows, German immigrant and ex-con Bruno Richard Hauptmann, 36, went to the electric chair on April 3, 1936, proclaiming himself innocent of swiping the Lindbergh child.

Since then, scholars have relentlessly questioned his guilt — or at least that he acted alone — and pointed to key pieces of evidence as having been doctored.

Perhach, meanwhile, calls the state’s claims that his team might damage the collection “completely laughable,” adding the artifacts should undergo modern testing ASAP.

“They’re deteriorating and wearing down, and will continue to do so,” he says.

Jonathan Hagel, a historian at the University of Kansas and a plaintiff in Perhach’s case, agrees the stakes are high despite the passage of time since the “crime of the century.”

“In the world we’re living in, it sounds naive,” he says, “but a commitment to the truth is important. There’s a potential for a historic injustice to be righted here.”