KU professor joins lawsuit to pressure New Jersey to allow DNA testing of Lindbergh evidence
Jonathan Hagel, an assistant professor of history at the University of Kansas, is among plaintiffs in a New Jersey lawsuit filed to compel opening of a documentary archives tied to the kidnapping and murder of aviator Charles Lindburgh's son. Hagel and other researchers seek permission to expose certain documents to modern DNA testing. (Submitted)
TOPEKA — An assistant professor at the University of Kansas is a plaintiff in a New Jersey lawsuit seeking modern DNA testing of state archive materials tied to the kidnapping and murder of the infant son of trans-Atlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh.
The 200-page Mercer County Superior Court suit was filed amid controversy about decisions by New Jersey State Police to block access to the case archive. The plaintiffs — KU historian Jonathan Hagel, author Catherine Read and retired teacher Michele Downie — said their Open Public Records Act request related the 1932 kidnapping was rejected.
Hagel, a New Jersey native who has studied the Lindbergh case, said DNA analysis of ransom notes or envelopes could contribute to understanding whether Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who was executed in 1936 after convicted of first-degree murder, acted alone in the high-profile crime. It is among questions that have riveted scholars and investigators since Hauptmann's trial.
'There were more than a dozen ransom letters overall, and they were sent through the post,' said Hagel, a New Jersey native who has studied the Lindbergh case. 'If Hauptmann's DNA is on it, then he definitely is not innocent of being involved. But, if there is other DNA, that would confirm other people's involvement.'
Twenty-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr. was abducted from the family estate near Hopewell, New Jersey. The family was contacted through ransom notes and parcels, and a demand for $50,000 was paid. The toddler's remains were subsequently discovered adjacent to a roadside several miles from the Lindbergh home.
'There are those who think we're likely to find Charles Lindbergh's DNA on the materials,' Hagel said. 'They believe there was some kind of accident, and he orchestrated this as a way to deflect responsibility.'
At least one previous lawsuit unsuccessfully sought to compel New Jersey to allow DNA testing of documents associated with the case. A state appellate court said New Jersey law didn't guarantee a public right to physically examine archive materials. In 2023, the State Police said access was restricted to preserve contents of case files.
'My take is that states or police organizations, like any bureaucracy, just like to protect their stuff,' Hagel said. 'There are others who think the state police are embarrassed they may have botched it quite badly and been involved in a railroading.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Cops violated man's civil rights by putting tracker on car in driveway, judges rule
Police must have judicial permission to do more than a visitor could on residential property, court rules. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) The New Jersey State Police violated a suspect's constitutional rights when troopers entered his driveway to attach a GPS tracker to his car under a warrant that only allowed them access to the man's vehicle, an appellate panel ruled Tuesday. The three-judge panel found officers violated state and federal constitutional protections by entering Maurice Johnson's driveway to attach the tracker because the communications data warrant they obtained for the device did not authorize them to enter the property. 'The [warrant] did not expressly authorize entry onto the driveway. Nor did the State Police seek prior judicial authorization to enter onto defendant's residential property when they abandoned the plan to install the device on a public street or parking lot,' the court wrote. The court granted Johnson's motion to suppress evidence gleaned from the improperly placed tracker. GPS data obtained from the tracker revealed a pattern of stops consistent with drug dealing, authorities said, and eventually led police to a storage unit in Johnson's name that held drugs, guns, and 'a substantial sum of money,' the court said. A lower court judge had rejected Johnson's request to toss the fruits of the communications data warrant, finding that the driveway was not afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches because it was unfenced, unlike the rest of the parcel. The appeals court said the driveway, however accessible, was protected from unreasonable search and seizure. 'The fact the particular area where the subject vehicle was parked was not protected from the weather does not mean it was not protected from physical incursion under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions,' the panel wrote. The judges acknowledged that police can have an implied license to approach a home's front door — as any private citizen might — but said police officers veered away from the front door to plant the tracker, 'thus exceeding the spatial boundaries of any 'customary invitation' that might be granted to a visitor such as a delivery person.' An implied license, which allows people to, for example, knock on a front door or deliver a package without committing trespass, did not permit authorities to enter the driveway so they could put a tracker on Johnson's car, they added. 'Simply put, installing a concealed GPS device is not something a visitor or delivery person would be expected and permitted to do,' the court wrote. The state's arguments, which compared officers' actions to a private vehicle repossession, were unconvincing because the Fourth Amendment protects against state intrusion, not against private debt collectors, they added. Portions of the warrant that left the manner of the tracking device's installation to officers' discretion likewise did not allow them to enter the driveway because both state and federal constitutions require warrants to 'particularly describe' the locations they allow officers to search, the judges found. 'The [warrant's] reference to the need 'to minimize the chances of detection of the device by the person whose vehicle is the subject of this warrant' was not some kind of code authorizing physical entry onto unspecified private property,' the court wrote. Whether police sincerely believed the warrant allowed them to enter the driveway was irrelevant, the judges said. A lower court discarded findings from a separate search warrant that authorized officers to look through Johnson's home because officers did not knock and announce themselves before entering, as the warrant required. But the lower court declined to suppress evidence secured through the improperly applied GPS tracker. The drugs, guns, and money discovered in Johnson's storage unit formed the basis for the warrant authorizing a search of his home, according to Tuesday's ruling. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
KU professor joins lawsuit to pressure New Jersey to allow DNA testing of Lindbergh evidence
Jonathan Hagel, an assistant professor of history at the University of Kansas, is among plaintiffs in a New Jersey lawsuit filed to compel opening of a documentary archives tied to the kidnapping and murder of aviator Charles Lindburgh's son. Hagel and other researchers seek permission to expose certain documents to modern DNA testing. (Submitted) TOPEKA — An assistant professor at the University of Kansas is a plaintiff in a New Jersey lawsuit seeking modern DNA testing of state archive materials tied to the kidnapping and murder of the infant son of trans-Atlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh. The 200-page Mercer County Superior Court suit was filed amid controversy about decisions by New Jersey State Police to block access to the case archive. The plaintiffs — KU historian Jonathan Hagel, author Catherine Read and retired teacher Michele Downie — said their Open Public Records Act request related the 1932 kidnapping was rejected. Hagel, a New Jersey native who has studied the Lindbergh case, said DNA analysis of ransom notes or envelopes could contribute to understanding whether Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who was executed in 1936 after convicted of first-degree murder, acted alone in the high-profile crime. It is among questions that have riveted scholars and investigators since Hauptmann's trial. 'There were more than a dozen ransom letters overall, and they were sent through the post,' said Hagel, a New Jersey native who has studied the Lindbergh case. 'If Hauptmann's DNA is on it, then he definitely is not innocent of being involved. But, if there is other DNA, that would confirm other people's involvement.' Twenty-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr. was abducted from the family estate near Hopewell, New Jersey. The family was contacted through ransom notes and parcels, and a demand for $50,000 was paid. The toddler's remains were subsequently discovered adjacent to a roadside several miles from the Lindbergh home. 'There are those who think we're likely to find Charles Lindbergh's DNA on the materials,' Hagel said. 'They believe there was some kind of accident, and he orchestrated this as a way to deflect responsibility.' At least one previous lawsuit unsuccessfully sought to compel New Jersey to allow DNA testing of documents associated with the case. A state appellate court said New Jersey law didn't guarantee a public right to physically examine archive materials. In 2023, the State Police said access was restricted to preserve contents of case files. 'My take is that states or police organizations, like any bureaucracy, just like to protect their stuff,' Hagel said. 'There are others who think the state police are embarrassed they may have botched it quite badly and been involved in a railroading.'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
‘My stomach just dropped': foreign students in panicked limbo as Trump cancels visa interviews
Students around the world who were gearing up to study in the United States this fall face growing uncertainty after the Trump administration temporarily halted student visa appointments this week. On Tuesday, a state department directive ordered US embassies globally to immediately stop scheduling visa interviews for foreign students while it prepares to implement expanded social media screening for all international visa applicants. While interview appointments that were already scheduled can proceed, the announcement sparked panic among students who have yet to secure interviews. Students who spoke with the Guardian expressed anxiety over delays in visa processing that could jeopardize scholarships, on-campus housing, their ability to start classes on time – and their very academic futures. 'My stomach just dropped,' said Oliver Cropley, 27, a student at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, who is meant to attend the University of Kansas beginning this August for a year abroad. Related: Unions representing Harvard workers fear Trump's 'authoritarian turn' The directive came amid a series of recent policy shifts targeting international students at US universities. This week, the Trump administration issued new measures targeting Chinese students, announcing it would focus on the visas of those studying in 'critical fields' and of students with ties to the Chinese Communist party, and implement heightened scrutiny for all future applicants from China and Hong Kong. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security said it would immediately ban Harvard University from enrolling international students, forcing the university's international student body to either transfer or leave the country. A federal judge blocked that effort on Thursday, but its long-term outcome remains uncertain. The changes have left many international students who are planning to come to the US for the 2025-2026 academic year scrambling and in limbo. Cropley said that he paid all of the application fees for the US visa including the last administrative fee last week to schedule his visa interview, but he has been unable to schedule it or reach anyone at the US embassy. 'I was looking forward to Kansas. I love America, the wildlife, the culture,' Cropley said 'It has demoralized me,' Cropley said. 'It's a stressful enough process, and then to get this sort of knockback at this stage … I'm supposed to be there on August 4.' The scholarship he received to go study in the US is also now in flux, he said, as it is contingent on him traveling. As he awaits updates from the US embassy, Cropley said he is exploring his options – inquiring about the possibility of re-enrolling at his home university in the UK and completing the year there instead of in the US. But he said 'it's quite late' to be picking classes and modules and finding accommodation. 'I'm sort of stuck in between the two different universities with no guarantee of getting into either,' Cropley said. 'Essentially, it's just a waiting game.' Another UK student, who has been accepted to Harvard for the fall, told the Guardian that they were in 'disbelief' over the administration's attempt to block Harvard from enrolling international students. Related: China condemns US decision to revoke student visas 'In your head, you have the next kind of five years knowing where you'll be, and then suddenly, overnight, that changes,' they said, speaking anonymously out of fear their comments could affect their visa approval. The student said that their visa interview was already scheduled when the directive was issued, so they hope their interview is still going ahead. The recent decisions by the Trump administration 'raise a lot of uncertainty for the future', they said, adding that the situation at Harvard feels 'very fragile'. 'We may still be able to go, but at any moment, that could change,' they said. 'And if you're going to this place, to do work, but your mind is consumed with a fear of how grounded you can be, will things change, that's also difficult to deal with.' They said that if they get their visa, they still plan on enrolling at Harvard. The Guardian last week invited scholars in the US and students poised to study in the US to share their experiences navigating the Trump administration's recent actions targeting higher education. More than 100 people responded, many saying they were reconsidering their academic future in the country. Several international students who wrote in declined follow-up interviews with the Guardian, citing fear of repercussions. Alfred Williamson, a Harvard undergraduate from Wales in Denmark for the summer, told Reuters this week that he fears he may not be able to return to the US. 'We're being used like pawns in the game that we have no control of,' he said. 'We're being caught in this crossfire between the White House and Harvard, and it feels incredibly dehumanising.' Some universities have advised students who are already enrolled not to leave the US for the summer in case they won't be allowed back. There are currently more than 1.1 million international students in the US, comprising about 6% of the US higher education population, according to the Institute of International Education. They typically pay two to three times the tuition of domestic students, and for the 2023-2024 academic year international students contributed $43.8bn to the US economy, according to Nafsa. In a court filing on Wednesday as part of a Harvard lawsuit against the Trump administration's efforts to ban international students at the school, Maureen Martin, Harvard's director of immigration services, described 'profound fear, concern, and confusion' among students and faculty as a result of the action. Faculty and administrators, she said, have been 'inundated' with inquiries from current international students about their status and options, and several foreign consulates in the US have contacted the university seeking clarity on how the policy affects their nationals who are enrolled. Martin said that many international students are experiencing 'significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies'. Related: Fear on campus: Harvard's international students in 'mass panic' over Trump move Some, she said, are avoiding graduation ceremonies for fear of immigration action, while others have canceled travel plans due to concerns they might not be allowed back into the US. 'Too many international students to count' have inquired about the possibility of transferring to another institution, she said. Martin said that several current Harvard visa holders have also faced increased scrutiny at airports. The Guardian reached out for comment to a number of universities with large foreign student populations. Most said they were monitoring the situation and would do what they could to support their students. 'We have a robust set of resources for our incoming and current international students, as well as contingency plans for those who might experience disruptions to their learning,' said Renata Nyul, the vice-president for communications at Northeastern University. A spokesperson for Arizona State University, which has more than 17,000 international students, said that the university is 'monitoring the situation closely and remains committed to fully supporting all international students in completing their degree programs'.
