The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling - EP06 | May The Best Conspiracy Win

Episode Date: June 23, 2026

In the final episode of The Lindbergh Conspiracies, Joe and Poppy revisit the case’s most compelling theories one last time—from Robert Zorn’s claim that a German immigrant named John Knoll was the true mastermind, to Robert Cahill’s methodical argument that Bruno Hauptmann acted alone. They also follow one lawyer’s ongoing legal battle to secure DNA testing on the ransom notes. It’s a fight that could either settle the case once and for all—or add new fuel to the fire.  Reading list:  Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead — Anne Morrow Lindbergh (1973) Scapegoat: The Lonesome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann — Anthony Scaduto (1976) The Airman and the Carpenter — Ludovic Kennedy (1985) Hauptmann’s Ladder — Richard T. Cahill Jr. (1986) Crime of the Century — Gregg Ahlgren & Stephen Monier (1993) Beneath the Winter Sycamores — Jim Bahm (2000) The Case That Never Dies — Lloyd C. Gardner (2004) Lindbergh — Thomas Doherty (2005) Lindbergh’s Baby — Candace Fleming (2011) The Lindbergh Kidnapping: Suspect No. 1 — Robert Zorn (2012) Suspect No. 1 — Lise Pearlman (2017) The Lindbergh Nanny — Mariah Fredericks (2020) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Right at the start of this series, I call the Lindberg Kidnapping the first great American conspiracy. And now that we've been through it together, sorting out all the leads, all the anomalies, all the theories, I think you can see why. You'll also remember what I said in episode one about what I think the consequences of that are. Just a little bit of doubt, and it spreads like knotweed. You pull it one cluster and you find enough. and another, and another, until you look up and realize the whole foundation has shifted. That's what's happened with the Lindbergh kidnapping. It started with a missing child and three simple clues. And it grew into a mystery that bothers many people to this day.

The theories split, as they always do, and each one took root in a different direction. There's the inside job theory. Maybe it was all about the money. Someone in the inner circle who knew the family's routine, knew the house, knew the nursery, and decided to take their cut of the Lindbergh fortune by participating in a ransom scheme. But at some point, it all went terribly wrong and the child died. There's the Lindberg did it theories. There are two versions of this horrible theory, and one, Lindberg, while pulling a prank in which he hid the baby,

accidentally killed the child. Unwilling to take responsibility, he concocted a kidnapping story. In the second, more deliberate version, the child was, in the father's cold eugenesis estimation, defective. And would look like a kidnapping was something far more sinister.

Charles Lindbergh, controlling, calculating, the man who would go on to openly admire Nazi Germany was the architect of his son's death. The ransom negotiations he steered himself, the crime scene he controlled. In this version, Lindberg didn't just know how the story ended. He wrote it. Then there are those who believe little Lindy never died at all,

that the body in the woods was misidentified, deliberately or otherwise, and that the boy was taken somewhere, raised under another name, and lived out of life he never knew was sort of. stolen from him. That there are people walking around now who carry Lindberg's lineage.

This version never dies either. Notweed really does. Which brings us to what is now the unlikeliest theory of all, though it was once what everyone assumed, that a German immigrant, desperate for money, built a ladder, drove to Hopewell alone,

got extraordinarily lucky that the family happened to be there that night, climbed in through a window, and changed history. That the baby died accidentally or otherwise that same night. That he demanded and received a $50,000 ransom. That the marked bills led back to him. He was tried, convicted, and executed. And justice, imperfect though it was, was done.

Whichever version you choose says something about you. It says something about how much you trust authority, about how willing you are to live with contradictions and moose ends, about how willing you are to say, I don't know, maybe no one will ever know. Or on the other hand, to say, I don't trust authority, because too many times we've been misled, too many times we've been lied to,

I'm willing to think the worst until you can prove otherwise. We called this series the Lindbergh conspiracies to point to the double meaning of the word. It could be a conspiracy that saw the wrong man executed, a cover-up. Or it could be the Charles Lindbergh's reputation, and how that reputation evolved falls nicely into our age of conspiracy.

In other words, because Lindbergh's extraordinary fame, not to mention his later actions, People believe he must have done something bad. Poppy is not in that camp. Joe, there's even a name for what happens in our brains when we encounter cases like this. It's called pattern recognition theory. Basically, we as humans need stories to make sense. There's an inbuilt sense of story.

Even some say a five-act structure. There's cause and effect. And so when things happen like coincidences or things that don't have an explanation, our brain actually can't compute. say this story has to make sense, and that's how you get conspiracies. I don't think it leads to truth. I don't think in the Lindberg case that the conspiracies have led us any closer to what really happened. I'm Joe Nocira, and for the free press, this is the Lindbergh conspiracies. This is our final episode. May the best conspiracy win. We've spent a lot of time in this podcast

talking to people who believe Charles Lindberg was involved in the death of his son. We're now going to turn the floor over to two men who think that Lindberg had nothing whatsoever to do with the kidnapping. And yet, the two could not be further apart in what they believe happened. Let's start with Robert Zorn, who we heard from in episode one.

His thesis may be the wildest one of them all. For the last 14 years now, I have devoted myself as a writer and researcher of the Lindberg case and of the life of Charles Lindberg. I believe that in the end, I will be the person who has brought most amount of truth to this story as well as to the life of Charles Lindberg.

I'm currently working on a biography of Charles Lindberg to coincide with the 100-year anniversary of his flight to Paris coming up in 2027. And as the only person who has gotten the story of the kidnapping right, I am in a year, unique position to be the first to tell the complete and true story of Charles Lindbergh's life. Robert also has a new book publishing this month called The Lindberg Code, which goes into more detail about his theory around the kidnapping. As I'm going to show to the world, history

got it wrong. According to Zorn, the mastermind of the kidnapping of Little Lindy was a man named John K-N-O-L-L. Or maybe I should call him Cemetery John. John Knoll. What we have in John Knoll is a 20-year-old man who came to the U.S. from Germany in 1925 when anti-German sentiment in America prevailed. He was shocked to find himself unwelcome in America, the target of discrimination and condescension. Where was the American dream for him and fellow members of the German-American community? It was a mirage, a phony deal as he saw it. And what was the best way to take revenge on America to attack America's most beloved, admired hero, Charles Lindberg. What better way was there to shatter Lindberg than to

kidnap his 20-month-old baby? Indeed. Well, the whole story started for me when I was a 22-year-old student at the Wharton Graduate School of Business on my spring break, and my dad came up and visited me on my vacation. And as I was taking him back to the airport for him to go back to Dallas, he said, Robert, you may think you're old man's off of his rocker, but I got a story to tell you. And my hands tightened on the steering wheel as my father was a very sober-minded, critical thinker, and except in jest, he never said anything that was nutty at all. Zorn's father proceeded to tell him about a German neighbor who lived three doors down from him in the South Bronx in 1931 when he was just a kid, John No.

My father, at the age of seven, was struck in the eye by an alcoholic uncle, who, in a fit of alcoholic rage, punched him in the eye, my dad lost the sight. And as a result, my grandmother would not allow my dad to play stickball or any sports with the kids. And so he's the kind of kid who's looking out the window

watching all the other kids play stickball and having a great time. Noel took Zun's father under his wing and got him interested in a hobby, stamp collecting. One day, invited my dad to go to Palisades Amusement Park in New Jersey. My dad had never been out of the state of New York before.

He was one of six kids. He had five sisters. And this was the biggest deal in the world. So anyway, they took a series of subway trains from the Bronx to Manhattan and then free across the Hudson River. They went to this park which sat at the top of the Palisades cliffs in New Jersey. The town next to the Palisades was Englewood, where Dwight Morrow and his wife lived

and where the Lindbergs usually stayed during the week. This is where the plot thickens. After spending time in the amusement park, Noel, with Zorn's father in tow, met two men who were waiting for him. His younger brother Walter, whom my father knew, Walter worked in the deli, Waltman's delicatessen, at 706 Westchester Avenue in the Bronx with John, and then a third man that my father had never seen before.

All of a sudden, the men's street. started talking to one another in German. John knew that my father didn't know how to speak German, okay? So he feels comfortable speaking in German in front of my father with his brother Walter and this third guy. My dad picks up that they're talking about some place called Englewood. He also picked up that John is calling this third guy, Brinnau. Then John does something very strange.

He sends my father home alone. Having never left the Bronx in his life, Zorn's father wasn't really sure how to get back. And for my father, this was a bit of, I would say this was a minor childhood trauma that he would never, ever forget. Zorn's father never forgot that day in the Palisade. At this time, my father is the chief economist

of the biggest bank in the Southwest, Republican National Bank of Dallas. And he walks into his barbershop at the age of 47. Ironically, he had almost no here. And while he's waiting for his name to be called, he reaches out for a magazine on the stack and picks up a magazine called True.

And in that magazine was an article about the Lindbergh case. So he's reading about it, and he finds out that the Lindbergs, they had been living with Ann Morrow's parents in Englewood, New Jersey. My father reads a little bit more, and then he's seeing how that there was a mysterious man in two different Bronx cemeteries, Woodlawn Cemetery and St. Raymond Cemetery. And at the first cemetery, Woodlawn, where my father had just buried his own father in August of 1963. So he's very familiar with the layout and the surroundings.

He started to wonder if the John he knew as a child was that John, Cemetery John, one of the kidnappers. And that's when he asked himself a question, one that still hasn't been fully answered. how many people were really involved. As it turns out, John Noel was still living in Tom's River, New Jersey at the time that my father told me the story. My immediate reaction was to go down there and confront him, which is something my dad never would have done,

but it's something I would have done. But you know, you're a 22-year-old kid you think you have all the time in the world, and as it turned out, John Noel died six weeks later. So I've been kicking myself ever since about, that, Joe. This seems like a pretty thin read upon which to hang a kidnapping. But Zorn feels that the circumstantial evidence backs him up. First, a photo of Noel reveals that he bears a much closer resemblance to Condon's description of Cemetery John than does Bruno Hopman. Condon said that the kidnapper had a high forehead, large ears, a pointed chin, and a fleshy development

on his left thumb. That described Noel to a T. Even the thumb thing. Second, he says Noel's handwriting more closely matches the handwriting on the ransom envelopes than Hopman's. Third, when the manhunt for the kidnappers began, Noel left the Bronx and moved to Detroit.

He also skipped town just before the start of the trial. Zorn, needless to say, views these moves as suspicious. Fourth, he's consulted several criminologists who have told him that Noel's personality fits with that of a potential kidnapper, or worse, a cold-blooded killer. Fifth, remember how John Noel got Zorn's dad interested in stamp collecting? Both Mary Ellen O'Toole and Dr. Craig Newman, who was one of the world's leading researchers of psychopathic personality, believed that John Knoll was embedding clues in my then-teen-age

father to make my father the unwitting archivist of his great crime for history. This is all part of a game that he was playing. There are so many things that no one has ever seen and noticed about this case who have studied it. But one of the things he was doing, he was giving my dad stamp collectibles, including a stamp that was canceled on the very date of the kidnapping, March 1st, 1932. He gave my dad to Lindberg airmail stamps, including a Lindberg airmail stamp with what is known as a kill mark cancellation. A kill mark defaces the stamp obscuring the image.

In this case, the image of Lindberg. There is one other thing about Zorn you should know. He despises the ideas pushed by authors like Lisa Perlman, who says that Lindberg was involved in his son's kidnapping. It has been said that this child was, so badly deformed that his father wanted to get rid of him or wanted to do an experiment. It's absolute garbage. So these theories collapse very quickly.

I was the first person outside the Lindbergh family to be given the honor and privilege of viewing the 1931 Lindbergh home movies, which run about 15 minutes and the major focus of these home movies is the baby. This baby was a peach. And this baby, he lost his life at the age of 20 months and endured a horrible kidnapping and murder. This child deserves to be portrayed accurately. In 2012, Zorn wrote a book laying out his case for Noel being the kidnapper. It was called Cemetery John, the undiscovered mastermind of the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Did it convince me and Poppy? Sorry, Robert, it did not. Though, to be fair, publishers weakly said it makes a strong case. To give Zorn his due, though, it's quite possible that he cracked one part of the mystery, which is that the baby had been put in a burlap sack and was likely lowered down from the window using a pulley system. Remember, the ladder was on the right side of the windowsill. Noel was left-handed, so he may have been the one on the ladder, Zorn argues. He was, in other words, Hauptmann's missing accomplice.

There's one other thing I think Zorn is completely right about. There was nothing physically wrong with Little Lindy. On the stand, Betty Gow testified that he was in perfect health. And Anne Lindberg, in various letters that she published years later, makes him sound like any normal 20-month-old child. This is from a letter she wrote to Lindbergh's mother, three weeks before the kidnapping. C. Jr. is trying to stand on his head

and look at me upside down through his legs. C. Jr. talks a great deal more. He says everything after you. The baby can wind up your music box by himself. He is more interested in the elephant and says something that sounds like elephant, but he prefers the gray pussycat with the flat tail to take to bed at night.

So much for the theory that Lindberg did it because his son was a cripple of some sort. The other person we spoke to, who also believes Lindbergh had nothing to do with it, was Robert Cahill. In earlier episodes, he helped walk us through various aspects of the kidnapping. Now it's time for him to give us his view,

which is, are you sitting down for this? The prosecution got it right. I asked him why he decided to write a book about the kidnapping. I was going to go to law school, I thought, you know what, this might be a nice little hobby. I'll go down and I'll look at the original documents and find out for myself.

20 years later, my book comes out, and one of the big reasons for my book was so people wouldn't have to go through all the crap that I did trying to find out what really happened, because there's so much evidence and so much documentation on this. The book was called Hauptmann's Ladder, a step-by-step analysis of the Lindbergh kidnapping. Put it simply, I believe that he put the ladder up, he climbed up, and he killed. kidnapped a baby, likely put it in a burlap sack. I say that because there was a burlap sack found at the gravesite. Climed down, the ladder under both his weight and the weight of the baby broke as the way I've described before. And unfortunately, the child died.

And I think he panicked and took off. And then got rid of the body as quickly as he could, some distance away. How could Hauptmann have known which window was the babies? The house was not finished in that there were no curtains on the windows, no drapes. Anybody with a pair of field glasses could have observed the house from the woods. Earlier in that day, Anne Lindberg had taken a walk, and she had walked right past the nursery, and Betty Gow had held the child up to see his mother and wave and so forth. Anybody observing that would have been able to see that without difficulty.

Next question. Did Hauptman have an accomplice? There's no evidence to prove that there was an accomplice. Could somebody have been sitting in the car? Sure. I can't rule it out, but I can't make the conclusion. Do the ransom notes point to Hauptmann's guilt? When you read the letter, it sounds like somebody who spoke German naturally and was trying to write English. The really interesting thing is that the more difficult words were spelled correctly and the easier words were not, leading the police to conclude that probably the person used a German to English to German dictionary to look up more difficult words.

But other words where maybe he felt more comfortable with were misspelled. So they concluded right away that the person who wrote this was likely. German. Do you think Condon could have been involved in the kidnapping? I've found no evidence that shows me that Condon had anything to do it. He was a local busy body. What about the fact that Condon didn't identify Hauptman in the lineup? If you accept what Condon offered in his trial testimony, then there's no doubt. It's Halpman. The biggest problem with Condon is why didn't he identify Halpman when he went in for the lineup? He says in his book that he knew right away it was, And then he gives a story about, well, I didn't think it was fair.

Nonsense. It had nothing to do with him thinking it was fair. And this is speculation to some extent. But my reading of it and my conclusion of it has always been, I've always thought that Condon did recognize him, but didn't just want to say that's the guy and then walk out because then, well, okay, he'll come back at trial. Where's the glory for him?

There's also that key clue, the chisel. As for why he brought the chisel, that's all guesswork. I think it was more likely to force a window if he had to, which there goes the idea in my mind of an inside job, if you accept that, because the window was not locked. It couldn't lock, that particular one.

And if he knew that, why would he bring the chisel? Does he think there's even a possibility that Lindberg was involved in the kidnapping and maybe even the death of his son? The idea that Lindberg did it is asinine. It shows Boyd-Rae research. Here's the thing. Was Lindberg interested in eugenics?

Yes. And you know what relevance that has on the case? Nata. Nothing. I don't have any respect for people who write that Lindberg did it. I just don't. Okay? It's like saying Lindbergh still believed in Santa Claus. Well, that must mean that Santa Claus came and took the child. It's the same illogical jump in logic. I don't have any respect for people who write that Lindberg did it. I just don't. But the clincher for Cahill is the latter. To him, the latter proves without a doubt that how much It is an unusual ladder in that it is not the type of ladder you would use for construction. However, it is a ladder that is built to be relatively lightweight, that collapses in on itself, so that it can be carried around relatively easy, and the gaps in the rungs would be no good for me. I'm only 5'8, but for Halpin, who was much taller and had long legs, it worked for him. It was cleverly designed. Naturally, Poppy and I decided we had to see the ladder for ourselves. it's held on display at the New Jersey State Police Museum.

Although at his trial, Houtman claimed that no decent carpenter would ever build a ladder like that. That was clearly not the case. I have to say the two things that strike me is it definitely is a very professionally made ladder. I mean, I get that it's made from scrap wood, but it's not, I can see how it's got thought behind it.

There's bits sectioned out. It's actually quite complicated that it folds into three pieces. It's not just a piece of shit that he tried to claim later. That is very true. It's a weirdly complex piece. It's a three-section wooden ladder built from four different types of wood, but it also had a hook at the top that some thought might be used to latch onto the window. At Hauptman's trial, prosecutors made much of the fact that a piece of the ladder,

the infamous Rail 16, came from Hauptman's attic. Cahill found that awfully convincing. There cannot be a rational argument that he wasn't involved because how do you explain that rail 16 came from his attic when scientifically it clearly does. And he told us, Halman left the ladder behind for the simplest of reasons. It broke.

When somebody went down the ladder and was carrying a sandbag that approximated the weight of the child, the replica ladder broke in the same location that the actual kidnap letter did. At that point, you know, with a loud crack, you don't know if somebody heard it. And so I think at that point, Albin took off. There's one thing that could put all of this to rest. A DNA test of the ransom notes.

Particularly the one left on the window ledge that night. That could only have been left by the kidnapper. The person who's trying to make that happen is Kurt Perhatch, the lawyer who first got interested in the law because of his fascination with Hauptman's trial. He's been embroiled in litigation with the New Jersey State Police Museum trying to force officials to test the DNA. So far, he has not succeeded, but the fight's not over yet.

The legal battle has actually been going on since 2022. Before he sued, Kurt tried to persuade the state police to voluntarily do DNA testing on the ransom notes. But those conversations went nowhere. DNA testing of the ransom notes is an idea that had been floating around for quite some time. In 2003, there was a woman from Florida who asked the state of New Jersey

to do a DNA analysis of the evidence that went nowhere of the state of New Jersey said, no, thank you. In the mid-2000s, it came up again. One or two people asked, you know, hey, how come we're not going to do DNA testing of this? PBS and Nova did a documentary in 2010, 2011, where they asked the same thing. They were shot down with no answer and no explanation at all. Kurt then asked the New Jersey Attorney General about it during COVID.

Like most of us, I had a lot of extra time on my hands, and I started making calls and looking at things again from a new perspective. I've known the New Jersey Attorney General since 2016. I'd consider us at least acquaintances, if not friends. I reached out to him directly, and I thought, let me just ask him directly. Why can't, well, first of all, can I do some DNA testing if I get the right people involved? He said, let me get back to you. Many, many, many, many months go by. I don't hear anything back.

Hey, just curious. Yeah, no, Kurtz not going to happen. So in September 2022, he filed his first lawsuit with a researcher named Margaret Sutton. as the plaintiff, a woman who'd spent a decade volunteering at the very museum she was now suing. Margaret Suddacher is a senior citizen and spent many years volunteering over a decade of her life, helping to inventory and archive the state police files of over 225,000 pieces of paper. She spent most Tuesdays there for over 10 years. Four months later, the case got thrown out on a technicality, and the appeal failed too.

But Kurt was able to file a new lawsuit in April 2025 because three other interested parties reached out to Kurt to be part of a new suit as plaintiffs. Kurt's brief ran to 200 pages. That one lost at trial in July 2025. Kurt's appeal is going to be heard sometime in 26. Poppy has been to one of the court dates, and it's often a large crowd.

There's no reason why. The times we're living in today, we should not be able to re-examine older cases to see if justice happened in the interest of transparency for the public and for the history books. A big part of Kurt's argument is that in 1981, then Governor Brendan Byrne ordered all the Lindberg evidence to be made available to the public. DNA testing didn't become possible until the mid-80s. Kurt says that if DNA testing had been around when Byrne signed his order, it surely would have been done. Because DNA testing is in the spirit of that order. By the way, Governor Byrne personally believed Hopman was involved, but acted with an accomplice. The state, meanwhile, has argued that DNA testing would damage the envelopes.

Kurt told me that's laughable. First of all, there's 10 stamps where it's really easy to take a little needle and swipe underneath the stamp. And it's really easy to get under some of this paper, which some of that's not even attached together. It wouldn't even damage or hurt anything. And they just said no. I asked Kurt what he thought DNA testing would show. I think it's more likely than not that at least one of those pieces of paper does not have how his DNA on there. But would DNA testing end the conspiracies?

Kurt gave a firm, maybe. The argument that people are going to say you're never going to be happy is, to me, falls on deaf ears because this was one of these things that it's, to me, the greatest criminal soap opera in U.S. history. There were so many characters in it. There are so many odd things that happened to it. And it's frankly a shame that the last probably 40, 50, 60 years of Americans who didn't live through it don't really know much about it. it because it's such a fascinating story. So the argument that I would make there is that I think that the only way to get real justice here is to find out out of these 225,000 pieces of paper, the 15 or so that might have tangible DNA should be examined, should be tested. And if Houtman's

DNA is on those 15 pieces of paper, great. I think that the group that I've known now for 20 plus years that have studied every single facet of this case, I think they would be very happy that justice happened, that this thing is probably done. Here's Nicholaspe. We're always at a stage where the science now is finally perfect and good, whereas in the past it was hazy and bad, but now, you know, we had fingerprinting and now we have DNA and it's perfect, except in the case that, you know, brought DNA testing and it's absolute superior at anything. else and its infallibility is all built around the fact that, like, DNA testing, throw it out because it's always taken under bad circumstances.

Same with fingerprints. With the ladder and the floorboards, it is kind of like handwriting analysis and other things. Like the same people can look at this and plausibly come to very different conclusions. So, you know, we're constantly shifting in and out of the certitude that science will bring and it will project us to a place of pure information and pure justice. and all of that, and it always is, you know, it's just eroding the more we look at it. It just disappeared. The New Jersey State Police Museum shut off access to all the Lindbergh evidence,

despite Governor Burns' executive order. It is now reopened to researchers, but by appointment only. What causes people to become wrapped up in conspiracy theories? With Lindbergh, a lot of it, no doubt, is due to the... the fact that the official story is so full of gaps. But there's also something else going on, something rooted in the American psyche. Mariah Fredericks, the author of the Lindbergh nanny, is another person who thinks Lindbergh was not involved. She thinks all these Lindbergh conspiracies are simply a product of our

time. Certainly, a desire to grapple with the evil side of eugenics, I think, has led people to really want to delve into that side of Wimberg's personality. You know, the reason that I argue against Wimberg being guilty is not because I have any interest in redeeming a reputation of Charles Wimberg or minimizing or normalizing what he did and said. It's because I feel like we're becoming sloppy in how we process information that we're given. and we're not asking ourselves, what is the source?

Has this been well documented? And as we see with recent events in accusing immigrants in Ohio of eating pets, people are becoming quite shameless about the stories that they will just simply put out there as part of the narrative. And I think it is important to really look at the actual factual evidence and not just say, yes, this does fit into my vision of good and evil and how it works in the world. I think the belief in conspiracy theories is an essential way of making sense of a world where horrible things happen. That's Nick Gillespie again. And, you know, the big issue of this is with JFK.

How could a nobody like Lee Harvey Oswald topple, you know, this grand champion of everything. good about America and everything good about the Cold War and everything positive. We can't live with that thought. And so we look for conspiracies to explain what is otherwise obvious, but tragic or very disturbing and aimless in life. His wife Sarah Siskin has a few thoughts as well. Who doesn't hate their dad? You know, Lindbergh, terrible dude, we've got to tear him down. It's like the loss of childhood innocence. It's like the perfect Shakespearean drama, the old. The the ogre father, you know, who kills his children. I think it's, you know, it's just, it's a manifestation of our own internal damage.

So it's like the Oedipus complex on a, you know, cosmological level. Yeah. I think there's also something about conspiracy theory, particularly in today's world where everybody is a conspiracist. Nobody believes things just happen. I mean, that's the problem with conspiracy theories, right? At some point, you have to call it a day and get on. with your life and the people who don't, you know, end up being stuck.

And depending on who they are and where they're from and what they're hiding from, they might get stuck on Lindberg or the Rosenbergs or OJ or JFK. So I suppose the time has come for Poppy and I to come clean. Poppy lines up with Richard Cahill. She has come to believe that Hauptmann was the sole kidnapper. Halpman had the ransom money and to me that's the only concrete thing you can say so we know at the very least he was the extortionist

whether he was the kidnapper is harder to prove but I do think that it's the most likely and to be really honest it's hard for me to get into any camp that posits a conspiracy that doesn't have more evidence Poppy has another reason for wanting to believe in Hartman's guilt and to be honest I ended up thinking that Bruno did it because part of me can sleep easier at night if the right man was executed.

And I don't believe in the death penalty. But I do think that I hope that it was him. And I ultimately think that Cahill kind of had an answer for everything. Me? I came away convinced that there's simply no way one person could have done this by himself. The likelihood that someone working in a Lindbergh household was involved is high on my list of possibilities. Remember, the investigators assumed that they were looking for a team of kidnappers before they

stumbled upon Hauptmann. Once they had him, the game was this. How quickly could they get him to the electric chair to satisfy the public's thirst for revenge? Was Lindberg involved? Given how inexplicable so many of his actions were in the days and weeks after the kidnapping, I don't think it's a crazy notion. Though I must say, the idea that he killed his baby in Dr. Carell's lab is a bridge too far for me. Complex cases aren't just full of evidence. They're full of noise, red herrings, coincidences, human error, things that look like threads but lead nowhere. And the more you dig, the more you disturb the ground looking for the root, the more the not weed spreads.

The Lindberg case will never be fully resolved. Not to everyone's satisfaction. The doubt that surrounds it is baked into so much of the way we think about American history now. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon. The Lindbergh conspiracies was written by

me, Joe Nossera, and Poppy Damon. The producer was Poppy Damon. Original music, including the theme song, was composed by Toby Matamong. Sound design, scoring, and mixing was by John Scott. Our wonderful assistant producers were Bobby Moriarty, Monica Ricks, and Adam Feldman. Full disclosure, I am not a conspiracy theory guy, so I feel like I have to say it's Houtman,

but even I will say, I do wonder how he did all of that by himself. Fact-checking was by Noah Bernstein. I think it was Hottman and Fish in a group, and I think Hottman's the fall guy. The series was commissioned by Kieran Noonan and Alex Chesh. The head of audio and video at the free press is Yanna Kozlowski. I don't have a theory on exactly what happened, but I think Charles Lindbergh was involved. Additional editorial support came from our team at the free press, Kara Boyer.

I think the mob did it. Franny Block. I think somebody in that house had to be involved. And frankly, I think Lindberg was involved. One of the thoughts I had was his wife had an affair later in their relationship. What if she had one before, and maybe Little Lindy wasn't actually Lindberg's baby? Emily Jaffe. I am haunted by the fact that Charles Lindberg, a brave aviator, adored by millions,

was a prankster who once played the terrible prank of hiding his baby and pretending it was missing. Could Lindberg have done it again? Only this time it resulted in the tragic death of Little Lindy and spawned a cover-up. Lucy Biggers. I think Bruno did it and probably got help from someone on the inside, maybe the Butler. Catherine Morissette. There's a reason people say follow the money. And so I think it's probably Isidore Fish, a man with the money.

And Jeff Lubin. Limburg was involved. Studio operations by Avery Block and Kobe Quino. Our actors were Stephen Gay, Wayne Legat, Robert Kemp, Hannah Kant, and Kate Dilsich. Much of our research came from the books we were. cited throughout. We provide a reading list in the show notes. If you want to hear more, head over to the CBS Postmodern podcast where you can hear me talk about the case and about the making of this show. And one other thing. If you like this podcast, please consider becoming a

subscriber to the free press and leaving us a five-star review.