Bruno Books

At 10pm March 1, 1932 baby Charles Lindbergh Jr was found missing from his bedroom. The local police were called, then the family lawyer; next the NJ State Police. Chapter Two tells of America in the 1920s. There are mistakes here. The 18th Amendment gave Congress the right to control (prohibit) alcoholic drinks. The Volstead Act limited the alcoholic content to 3%; this prohibited liquor, wine, and beer. The depressed wages in the 1920s led to the Great Depression when people had little money to buy what they needed or wanted. Kidnapping for ransom grew during the 1920s as gangs operated with little fear from the corrupt municipal and state governments. A monoplane has one wing (p.16).

Two years later some of the ransom money was found in the possession of a Bronx carpenter. There were 3 theories about the crime (p.29). A ransom note came in the mail, and a stranger was contacted as a go-between. Lindbergh and Condon paid the ransom money to a lone man, but baby Charles was not returned. Two months later a body identified as baby Charles was found in a shallow grave; it was cremated. The police first considered this an inside job; it was unusual for the Lindberghs to stay there Monday night. The police deprived Hauptmann of food, water, and sleep, then beat him; but he never confessed. Hauptmann was extradited to NJ. The trial in Flemington was a media circus (p.50).

Chapter Four gives the prosecution's case, based on circumstantial evidence (facts that appear to connect the defendant to the crime). Witnesses said Hauptmann was near the Lindbergh home prior to 3-1-1932, and had taken the ransom money. Anyone who commits a burglary and kills someone is guilty of murder in the first degree. The witnesses' testimony is summarized. One witness who identified Hauptmann was legally blind (p.63)! $14,600 (out of $50,000) in ransom money was found hidden in Hauptmann's garage. A "wood technologist" testified that rail 16 from the ladder had been taken from Hauptmann's attic floor (p.72). Chapter Five presents the Hauptmann defense. Witnesses would testify that Hauptmann had an alibi for the kidnapping and ransom money exchange. Hauptmann's journal had his notes that damaged his testimony, as well as his earlier lies (pp.83-84). Hauptmann's wife backed his story. Some of Hauptmann's witnesses were bootleggers, part of the criminal class. Curiously, a dozen witnesses called by the defense ignored the court's orders (p.92)!

The jury quickly voted guilty (Chapter Six). Some said the death penalty was wrong because the evidence was circumstantial (p.98). Hauptmann's lawyers filed appeals on the basis that he didn't get a fair trial: "tried and convicted in the newspapers" (p.103). The legal appeals failed and Hauptmann was executed. One after effect was to ban cameras from most American trials for the next 6 decades. Some said the trial was unfair even by the standards of that time (p.108). Charles Lindbergh later revealed his reactionary pro-Nazi feelings, tainting his reputation and questioning his judgment. Some began to question the trial and verdict after a newspaper reporter wrote that Hauptmann was a "Scapegoat". Other books have also questioned the official theory of the crime. Could one man alone have driven to a strange place on a day the family was normally away? Why didn't their dog bark in the night? Was evidence tampered with to convict the only man caught with ransom money? No one disputed that Hauptmann had some of the ransom money. Whoever kidnapped baby Charles had the sleeping suit. Note how this important clue is skipped over in this and other books.

Shortly after the book arrived I threw it out. For some people it might be just the thing, but it really is pretty sterile, and surprisingly non-erotic.

I happened to see this book at a local bookstore and glad I looked at it, so I could point out some of the shortcomings. First, the photos are not very original you've seen most or all of them on the internet. Worst of all are some glaring inaccuracies and omissions.

The authors certainly go for the titillating, but if the chapter on Florence Ballard (of the original Supremes) is any indication, they are not known for doing an accurate job. The two photos they use of Florence Ballard are clearly photos of Cindy Birdsong, who replaced Florence Ballard, not of Florence. Shame on these people for doing such a sloppy job.

Mary Wells was not covered at all in this book, which I feel is an insult to her memory.

Save your money, you'll do better with internet searches on your favorite stars - better photos, definitely more accurate info. It's pretty obvious that these "authors" simply were out to make a quick buck, using stock photos of the net, second hand info off the net, etc.

I felt that the book was lacking in details that
would have led to implementation of some of the
algorithms presented. Often I felt that the math
was not providing any insights into what was acutally
going on behind the terminology.

The code on the CDROM has virtually no comments
and was useless to me when taken out of context.

I was disappointed in the end with the price/performance
of this book. It might be right for you, but flip through
it before buying!

My mother taught be to say little if you can't say something nice

I've been collecting Steven Underhill books for many years. I was anxiously waiting to see his new work. I was surprised at the content of the book. There are nice looking younger men who are "rassling" while the photographer takes candid photos of their activities. The majority of the book is black and white, with a few color pictures. I enjoy seeing the naked male physique. You won't see any of that. You'll see guys topless rassling with each other. I found it rather uninspiring, unless you're into men wrestling. The quality of the photographs was grainy and not what I'm used to seeing from his other works.

I bought it ot continue my collection of his works, but if you're new to his works, I would not recommend buying it.

I was expecting tastefully erotic pictures of guys wrestling. Instead I got amateurish and unappealing photographs. There was nothing captivating about the photos, which was surprising considering this is Steve Underhill. Very uninspired effort.

This was not my favorite book it gave every oppinion there was, both for and agains divorce. An author needs to take a position even if I do not agree with it!

This book of Bettelheim's makes me particularly mad because as a teenager I read it to see if I wanted to attend that place. And it sounded so lovely that I thought, oh this is the place for me to get better.

Too bad, Betttelheim didn't mention his use of physical abuse and shaming. Too bad, he didn't mention that the O.S. was really an abusive cult and that his successor was completely brainwashed by him.

I hate this calender because it's kiddie porn that objectifies young boys.

Unfortunately, this is a case of an author who had a preconceived notion about the subect of her biography and refused to change it in spite of the evidence. People often don't change their ideas when they are discredited -- a notion the Freudians say applies to everyone but themselves -- but ironiclly applies to them as much as anyone.
I was at the Orthogenic School Sutton writes about and she interviewed me for the article. I have never been so badly mispreresented or misquoted nor so blatently lied to by an author, though I have been quoted many times in may places about many subjects. Despite the evidence that Bettelheim falsified his research, cruelly treated his wards and advocated sham "cures" for "disturbed" children that actually did them more harm than good, she struggled to paint a positive picture of him.
The author also fell into another trap that the psychoanalytically-inclined are prone to: thinking they know better what someone else thinks than the individual does. She promised me I could control what she said about me in the book. Then she proceeded to print all sorts of unsourced untruths about me -- presenting as fact lies about what I did and how I supposedly felt. I was victimized by Bettelheim and again by Sutton. As the late Barry Goldwater said after his presidential campaign, "if I didn't know Goldwater and had to rely on the press for my information, I would have voted against the son-of-a-bitch myself."
The author is dishonest, the book is not accurate and should not be read or believed.