Recently, forensic methods that helped identify victims of the Gilgo Beach murders are now being used to re-examine the case of Bruno Hauptmann, a German immigrant accused of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby over 90 years ago.
This month, three individuals—a history professor, a retired teacher, and a developmental psychologist—filed a lawsuit against New Jersey State Police, seeking access to a ransom note sent to Charles Lindbergh in 1932. Newsday reported.
Genetic genealogists involved in the case indicated that advancements in DNA testing could allow them to analyze the envelopes for clues and potentially clear up longstanding questions.
This same technique was part of the recent efforts that identified victims like Valerie Mac, Karen Vergata, and others associated with the Gilgo Beach cases, where the remains of 11 victims were discovered along Ocean Parkway between December 2010 and April 2011.
Rex Heuermann has been charged with the murders of seven of those victims.
For decades, historians have believed that someone close to Charles Lindbergh, who became famous after his solo transatlantic flight from Roosevelt Field in 1927, was involved in the kidnapping. Even after paying a ransom of $70,000, Lindbergh’s child was not returned.
It wasn’t until 11 days later that the boy’s remains were found in a shallow grave in Hopewell, New Jersey, not far from where he was taken.
Hauptmann, who resided in the Bronx, was convicted and executed in 1936 for the crime, though some maintain his innocence.
According to Newsday, if the envelope is analyzed, the plaintiffs hope to retrieve viable DNA from the underside of the stamp to identify its sender through advanced genetic research.
While Heuermann faces multiple charges related to Gilgo Beach, he has not yet been formally linked to the cases of Vergata, Jackson, and her daughter.
During a recent press conference, Nassau County Homicide Detective Stephen Fitzpatrick was asked about possible connections between Heuermann and the murders. His response was careful: “We’re not saying it’s him, but not that it’s not him. We’re proceeding as if it’s not related.”
