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
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Why Your Overly Positive Personality Drives Your Friends Crazy
In today's world, where Instagram filters everyone into perfection and motivational quotes are slapped on everything from mugs to T-shirts, it might be shocking to realize that your relentless optimism isn't always welcome. Your toxic positivity might be the very thing that's driving your friends up the wall. We get it; the intention is good, a well-meaning attempt to uplift and inspire. But sometimes, just sometimes, your sunny-side-up perspective might be doing more harm than good. Here's the rundown of why everyone might not be jumping on your positivity parade. Your relentless positivity might set a standard that your friends feel they can't live up to. This can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, as they compare themselves to an unrealistic ideal. Instead of inspiring them, you might inadvertently be creating a divide. It's important to show your friends that it's okay to have off days and that nobody is perfect. By being open about your struggles and vulnerabilities, you can model what it means to embrace the full spectrum of human emotions. This can make you more relatable and approachable, fostering deeper connections with those around you. Remember, authenticity breeds connection. When you share your true self, you permit others to do the same. When a friend is venting about their terrible day, your immediate response is to remind them that it could be worse. You've got your 'stop complaining and be grateful' speech down pat, and while it seems like the right thing to say, it often just feels dismissive. The University of Kansas conducted research showing that validating someone's emotional experience fosters stronger connections. By skipping over their feelings, you're unintentionally ignoring their reality and the chance for genuine connection. Your friends, believe it or not, aren't searching for a pep talk at every turn. Sometimes they just want someone to say, 'Wow, that sucks.' It's not about reveling in negativity; it's about acknowledging that life isn't always a motivational poster. By jumping straight to the bright side, you're missing the opportunity to stand by them in their moment of need. And that, dear optimist, can feel incredibly isolating. In your pursuit of happiness, you might breeze past the gritty, messy details of life that your friends are entrenched in. This avoidance of the uncomfortable aspects of life can make your positivity seem disingenuous. In real friendships, glossing over the less-than-perfect parts can prevent deeper bonds from forming. It's the grit and grime of life that often fosters the most authentic connections. While you might think your relentless cheerfulness is a breath of fresh air, it can come across as shallow. Your friends might feel like you're not someone they can turn to when they're knee-deep in a mess. True support means you're willing to step into the muck with them, not just hover above it with a smile. Remember, real life is a mix of highs and lows, and ignoring the lows doesn't erase them. When you tell someone, 'It could be worse,' you're not making them feel better. Instead, you're telling them that their feelings aren't justified unless they're at the end of the suffering spectrum. This minimizes their experience and makes them feel like they need to compete with others to earn their right to feel bad. In reality, everyone's struggles are relative and should be respected as such. Assuming that your friends should feel grateful for not being in a worse situation can quickly shut down meaningful communication. It prevents them from fully expressing themselves because they're constantly comparing their problems to those of others. This comparison game can lead to feelings of inadequacy and shame that you're inadvertently amplifying. What you're left with is a friend who's more likely to bottle things up, avoiding your dismissive reactions. Telling someone to 'just think positive' sounds easy enough, but it's akin to telling someone to 'just fix it' without offering any tools. It disregards the complexity of emotions and the underlying issues that need addressing. According to psychologist Dr. Barbara Markway, strategies like mindfulness and acknowledging one's feelings are more effective in changing a negative mindset. Simply willing away negativity is not a sustainable strategy. By reducing someone's internal struggle to a simplistic directive, you're not giving them any real guidance. They need actionable steps, not just platitudes, to navigate through their challenges. When you throw 'just think positive' at them, it can feel like you're throwing them into the deep end without a life vest. Helping someone involves more than just a slogan; it's about offering concrete support. When a friend shares their struggles, responding with 'At least you have…' might feel like you're helping them gain perspective, but it often does the opposite. This type of response can feel invalidating, as it shifts the focus from their feelings to a comparison that may not be relevant. According to a study published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology, emotional validation is crucial for effective communication and relational satisfaction. By playing the 'at least' game, you sideline their current experience, leaving them feeling misunderstood and unsupported. It's important to realize that highlighting silver linings doesn't make the clouds disappear. Your friends need space to express their feelings without being told that they should feel differently. By constantly pointing out what they should be thankful for, you might be unintentionally telling them they don't have the right to feel upset. Allowing them the freedom to express their emotions without caveats can be far more supportive. Life isn't just a series of good or bad events; it's a spectrum of experiences that can elicit a wide range of emotions. But your tendency to paint everything in black and white might be doing a disservice to your friends. This binary view of emotions can prevent them from fully exploring and understanding their feelings. When you insist on positive thinking, you might be closing the door on meaningful introspection. Emotions are complex and often layered, with multiple feelings occurring simultaneously. This richness can't be distilled down to just 'happy' or 'sad.' By pushing a simplistic, positive narrative, you're encouraging them to bypass this complexity. Authentic support involves recognizing and validating all emotions, not just the ones wrapped in sunshine. Your insistence on seeing the bright side might add more stress to your friends' lives. A study from the University of California, Berkeley, found that forcing happiness can lead to increased levels of stress and anxiety. When you pressure your friends to be perpetually upbeat, you're ignoring the natural ebb and flow of emotions. This expectation to constantly maintain a positive outlook can be exhausting and feel like an additional burden. Instead of alleviating stress, your relentless optimism might be piling it on. It creates an environment where your friends feel they must suppress their true emotions in favor of the ones they think you'll accept. This suppression can lead to deeper emotional issues that surface later on. Encouraging your friends to be real and honest, even when it's not pretty, can offer genuine relief instead of added pressure. When someone opens up about a problem, resist the urge to jump straight into solution mode. Your brain might be wired to fix things, but not every issue has a straightforward resolution. Some problems require time, patience, and a willingness to sit with discomfort. By insisting on a quick fix, you might be dismissing the complexity of what they're going through. Your friends need your support, not your superhero cape. Solving their problems might make you feel useful, but it can come across as dismissive of their capacity to handle their own lives. Being there to listen and understand that some issues are ongoing can be more supportive than offering a list of solutions. Sometimes, the best way to help is by being present rather than presumptuous. Perpetual sunshine might seem appealing, but it can create shadows where none should exist. In your quest for unwavering positivity, you might cast judgment on those who don't share your sunny disposition. This can result in alienating those who are processing their emotions in their own time and way. Your friends might start to feel like they must wear a mask around you, obscuring their true selves. Not every day calls for a smile, and pretending it does can be exhausting. By expecting everyone to mirror your constant cheerfulness, you could be negating their genuine feelings. This expectation might prevent them from feeling safe enough to express their true emotions. Recognizing the full spectrum of emotions in your friends can foster more genuine connections. Your need to maintain a positive façade for others might suggest an avoidance of dealing with your own emotions. Constantly focusing on others' happiness can be a way to deflect from your struggles. This deflection might seem like generosity, but it can be a sign that you're neglecting your emotional well-being. Your positivity can be a mask, a way to hide what's going on underneath. By relentlessly promoting positivity, you might be denying yourself the opportunity to grow and learn from life's challenges. It's essential to look inward and acknowledge your feelings. Only then can you genuinely support others in their emotional journey. Remember, self-reflection doesn't diminish your positivity; it enhances your authenticity. Your drive to be a beacon of positivity often means that you feel the need to always be 'on.' This can lead to an unsustainable cycle of emotional exhaustion and burnout. While your intentions are noble, it's crucial to remember that nobody can maintain a constant state of high energy and happiness. Perfection is an illusion, and striving for it can be draining. Your friends might feel like they're walking on eggshells, trying to match your enthusiasm. This pressure to conform to your upbeat outlook can be taxing on relationships. Allowing for moments of vulnerability and authenticity can create a more balanced dynamic. Letting go of the need to always be 'on' can make room for more genuine interactions. It's easy to fall into the trap of offering unsolicited advice when someone shares their struggles with you. You might think you're helping by providing solutions, but sometimes, your friends aren't looking for advice—they just need an empathetic ear. Offering advice can unintentionally convey that their feelings or actions aren't valid. Listening without interjecting can be far more powerful than any advice you can offer. When you rush to fix things, you might miss out on understanding the depth of what they're experiencing. Your friends might start to feel like their emotions are problems to be solved rather than experiences to be shared. By holding back on the advice, you allow them to explore their feelings without judgment. This creates a space where they can process and heal on their terms.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Hagel worried about ‘loss of life' in LA troop deployment: ‘Like we saw in 1970'
Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in a Tuesday interview that he is concerned that deploying National Guard troops to quell protests in large American cities could lead to a repeat of the 'loss of life' that took place at Kent State University in 1970. Asked about his biggest concern with having the National Guard and Marines deployed in cities like Los Angeles, Hagel told CBS News correspondent Ed O'Keefe, 'The loss of life — like we saw in 1970, at Kent State.' Hagel, a former Republican senator and Army veteran, noted that National Guard troops were likely insufficiently trained in 1970 to deal with student protesters. 'The National Guard opened up on students and killed students — probably because they weren't trained,' Hagel said, referring to the four students killed and nine injured when National Guard troops opened fire on the Kent State campus. 'They panicked.' O'Keefe asked Hagel what he thinks officers' reactions are now when they hear President Trump suggest he might send troops into other cities. 'The concern that our top leadership will have, if this continues, is, 'Am I going to get to the point where I may have to refuse a direct order to send in or give troops authority to do whatever,' ' Hagel said. 'Contemplating a scenario like that is a career-ending decision,' he added. Trump on Tuesday warned potential protesters who are planning to attend Saturday's military parade in Washington, D.C., that they would be met with 'very big force.' 'If there's any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'For those people that want to protest, they will be met with very big force. And I haven't even heard about a protest.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- The Hill
Hagel worried about ‘loss of life' in LA troop deployment: ‘Like we saw in 1970'
Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in a Tuesday interview that he is concerned that deploying National Guard troops to quell protests in large American cities could lead to a repeat of the 'loss of life' that took place at Kent State University in 1970. Asked about his biggest concern with having the National Guard and Marines deployed in cities like Los Angeles, Hagel told CBS News correspondent Ed O'Keefe, 'The loss of life — like we saw in 1970, at Kent State.' Hagel, a former Republican senator and Army veteran, noted that National Guard troops were likely insufficiently trained in 1970 to deal with student protesters. 'The National Guard opened up on students and killed students — probably because they weren't trained,' Hagel said, referring to the four students killed and nine injured when National Guard troops opened fire on the Kent State campus. 'They panicked.' O'Keefe asked Hagel what he thinks officers' reactions are now when they hear President Trump suggest he might send troops into other cities. 'The concern that our top leadership will have, if this continues, is, 'Am I going to get to the point where I may have to refuse a direct order to send in or give troops authority to do whatever,' ' Hagel said. 'Contemplating a scenario like that is a career-ending decision,' he added. Trump on Tuesday warned potential protesters who are planning to attend Saturday's military parade in Washington, D.C., that they would be met with 'very big force.' 'If there's any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'For those people that want to protest, they will be met with very big force. And I haven't even heard about a protest.'
