|
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2006 5:33:24 GMT -5
Kevin,
I see nothing to contradict Anna believing Hauptmann was making money in the Stock Market. He told everyone that and they believed him. Some even gave them their own money to invest for them - to me that speaks volumes concerning the confidence shown in his money making ability in the market. Unless Anna sat down and went over the figures then I see nothing to suggest she too didn't believe this was the case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 14, 2006 6:03:37 GMT -5
Evan after the arrest, siezure of ransom money, and trial? What I am getting at is not her guilt under the law ,but her possible feelings of guilt from being a part of the whole mess. It wouldn't matter if she was a willing partner to feel a sense of guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 10:04:37 GMT -5
I really believe she blamed Fisch for the whole matter. Have you read the accounts of Schlesser? He was the one who the Prosecutor's send to the Defense to pretend to be a Witness for them and spy on them. It seems to support what I have been saying.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 15, 2006 12:50:25 GMT -5
As part and parcel of the Lone Wolfe Strategy AGW had to bring Fisch up from professional conman/moneybags lawnderer to the saintly status of poor, but, upstanding young furcutter. The transformation was turdley a work of art. (oops truly) Members of the Manhattan Chuzpah Society came forth and testified what a nice guy Fisch was. and that he was so poor he had to live on the street. And he had no Coat. His story should be added to Grimms Fairey Tales. He rented the smallest room from Gerta up in the hot attic for $3.50 week. He coughed up blood. His safe deposit box was barren. He had no stocks, no bonds, no partners, no furs, no Gold Certs etc. He didnt owe anyone any money for the Kinckerbocker Pie Company fraud--not even Gertals Mom. No books either. And on top of that, BRH was trying to steal his $14,900!
AGW paid NJtaxpayers money to bring all of the Fisch family over to the USA and Atlantic City for a huge prepaid vacation. Im practically in tears just retelling how sad it was for Poor Isadore. "Dont slander a dead but honest man" the public cried.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 15, 2006 17:23:34 GMT -5
"I really believe she blamed Fisch for the whole matter" (Michael)
Yes, I have no doubt she did. Fisch is an easy target. But don't you think she harbored doubts? What did she first say to Richard upon seeing him with the police in their apartment?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2006 7:55:42 GMT -5
My recollection from a number of separate accounts is that Anna immediately questioned Richard as to what he had done. If true, this might indicate she had some general doubts about the legitimacy of some of her husband's activities. Perhaps these were fueled by his earlier admissions of criminal activity in Germany, or was she intuitively or otherwise, picking up on signs that it was not Wall Street that was contributing to their new found financial freedom?
While this line of thinking generally tends to exculpate Anna from involvement, I don't discount the possibility that Richard's unusual response in German, about a gambling problem, was a prearranged signal for her to be on guard. The bottom line being that he was now in danger of being nabbed for his role in the kidnapping and extortion, and for Anna, who was at least aware of his involvement, to deny any knowledge whatsoever.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 19, 2006 9:42:57 GMT -5
"My recollection from a number of separate accounts is that Anna immediately questioned Richard as to what he had done"
Yes exactly. Of course I am sure this will be disputed, but it seems to me an odd response. I really have a hard time believing that Anna is oblivious to her husbands success in the market while everyone else is suffering through the depression. Surely in such circumstances if your mate had found the secret to success it would be natural to want to share it with those closest to you. How many of the Hauptmann's relatives and close friends benefited by Richard's investment acumen?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2006 20:12:24 GMT -5
There were several and I am still running across more. The funny thing is they all seemed to earn "something" as a result of their investment. I haven't found anyone losing money after giving Hauptmann cash to invest for them. I also can't find if, in reality, they legitimately made some from his investments or if Hauptmann was simply giving them "extra" to bolster his story that he was making money there. It seems like a wise thing to do, and had everyone saying (and believing) he was indeed making money there...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2006 13:07:08 GMT -5
Then it would seem that his duplicity is far reaching. But what about the personal side, I mean you have stated many times that you try to look at things from a personal/ life experience viewpoint. I try to do this as well. Hauptmann must have been going through some extreme emotional highs and lows regarding the kidnapping and or finances. It is pretty clear to me that he couldn't wait to hang up the old hammer and put on a suit. Don't you think Anna would have noticed these moods? In hindsight wouldn't there at least be a hint of involvement in this crime that she could see?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2006 19:33:17 GMT -5
Anna certainly seemed to embrace the upscale lifestyle enjoyed by the Hauptmanns, within a month or two of the the ransom payments of April 2, and prior to her visit to Germany in the summer of 1932.
Marie Hahn was questioned by Prosecutor Breslin shortly after Hauptmann's arrest. The following is an edited excerpt of her interview: (source: Fisher: Ghosts of Hopewell)
Q: How did you happen to go up there?
A: ... She came to me and said she was taking a trip to Germany... And she said, "Mrs. Hahn, will you come and take a look at my wardrobe? Why don't you come one afternoon while my husband is not here."... And then about six or seven o'clock in the evening her husband came back... And I said. "When the Mrs. is away what are you going to do?" And he never looked at me and he said, "Well, I suppose I got to give her some money along." And I say, "She has a very nice wardrobe." I was surprised, she comes from a place in the country. She bought evening gowns and she had all good clothes. They all came from good stores. There was no dress under $20. (approx. $280 value today) She had fifteen or sixteen of them.
Q: Where had she bought them?
A: I don't know... I said, "What are you doing with evening clothes?" She said, "I probably going here and there" and I thought ain't it funny where she goes she needs evening clothes. Then I ask him, "Well Mr. Hauptmann, how much you give the Mrs. when she takes her trip? " And he said, "I think $1,000 enough for her." And I said, "She got ticket already and got such nice clothes and he give her $1,000, and $1,000, it is very good," and then there was nothing said and I went home.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2006 19:57:51 GMT -5
Hauptmann always wanted to do that. Even before the ransom payoff he was involved in the market. Did Anna think, for example, Hauptmann had robbed a bank or killed someone before their California trip in '31?
Even after the payoff Anna continued to work until June of '32. The woman wouldn't even lie in Court to assist him by saying she saw the box in the closet. I accept that she believed him. I don't think she knew he was cheating on her either and when it was insinuated in Court she was rather unhappy about that too...
I believe she thought Fisch was the real culprit. Has anyone checked out her Wrongful Death Lawsuite? If someone suspects their husband they simply don't go to these lengths to clear his name... all the while not knowing what evidence the Police have or don't have in their Archives.
Kloppenberg was his best friend and I don't believe he had any idea either.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2006 16:19:26 GMT -5
Yes, Hauptmann was playing the stock market before the ransom payment, but if we look at the year from early 1931 to early 1932, his fortunes had taken a major downturn. He was unable to make a $75 margin call to his broker for most of the year in 1931 due to a shortage of cash. After their return from California, his stocks lost most of their value following the largest single market decline ever, one which started in November, 1931 and didn't begin reversing until June of 1932. Hauptmann was no longer regularly employed and Anna was working for very modest pay.
At what point and due to what circumstances, did things in their lives suddenly now improve to the point of being able to lay out money for fifteen or sixteen expensive evening dresses, in addition to the other many, assorted luxuries acquired so freely following the ransom payment? I have great difficulty in simply accepting that Anna Hauptmann unquestioningly bought into her husband's explanation that he had found the key to investing in a market that was universally so well known to be a continuously losing one at the time.
With regards to her testimony, she knew that lying to help in her husband's kitchen closet story was not an option. Through her obvious evasiveness on the stand she knew there was never a shoebox on that top shelf and had she chosen to lie outright, she would have been exposed. I find it far more illuminating to envision how she must have processed all of this later on, in light of her husband's insistence that the box was up there all the time. I give her some credit for faithfully defending her husband, but that doesn't necessarily mean she was telling all she really knew.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2006 7:50:06 GMT -5
Shortage of cash?
This is interesting in light of:
1. Buying a new car 2. Qutting their jobs during the depression 3. Placing their property in storage 4. Traveling across country on a vacation 5. Paying for temporary housing upon return 6. Renting a more expensive place with money up-front.
Saying they were short of cash would be like pointing to Hauptmann's letter to Mrs. Begg as evidence of being short.
Regardless, my point above about his interest in the market is supported.
Anna's testimony supporting Hauptmann's discovery of the box wouldn't have helped? How can you say this? The Defense thought it would... now you seem to be saying Anna somehow knew better so that's the real reason she didn't lie?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2006 8:03:37 GMT -5
This is a good exchange!
.
We know that they weren't independently wealthy, so what do you think is the source for the spending?
|
|
|
Post by rickIII trooper II on Apr 24, 2006 10:20:51 GMT -5
kevin....toward the end of Norris' ebook he tells a story he heard along the way. Someone claimed that Fisch, Carl and Greta Henkel, BRH, Whateleys etc. were agents of the German airplane Industry damaged by CAL and Annes trip to China in 1931. Im not saying this holds water, I am just saying that there are both governments and companies that pay good money for International con-spirators.? I always thought these illegal German immigrants were too well heeled for thier own jobs. After all, Carl Henkel drove truck for Knickerbocker Pie Company but they didnt even have any pies? It was a huge scam.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2006 13:07:28 GMT -5
Rick. I really find all this interesting. As a avid reader of Le Carre I can definitely get into it. However, the biggest obstacle to all of it is the inherent penalty that complexity of action, or in this case crime carries with it. That is the more complex a crime gets the greater the trail of evidence and the greater the chance of discovery or someone leaking information. With so many involved and large organizations to boot, I find it almost impossible to believe that eventually the conspiracy would not be revealed. Yet after all these years there is still silence.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 24, 2006 21:11:23 GMT -5
Michael, no argument from me at all that Hauptmann was interested in the market, from the moment it crashed in 1929. Shortly after this happened he thought he could simply bottom feed anything and do nothing but make lots of easy money. He continued to believe this even after the major decline of November 1931, when his stocks had lost most of their value. But interestingly, it appears he had the patience to wait until after April of 1932 to rekindle his major cash investments in the market and go on a material spending spree.
Hauptmann didn't quit looking for carpentry work until after he received his portion of the ransom payment, so this point is irrelevant to the onset of the Depression. By the way, I believe Anna quit Fredericksen's in December of 1932, and not June. Not surprisingly, with their newfound wealth, they obviously felt she didn't have to work.
What I see in their California trip in 1931, aside from visiting Hauptmann's sister and her family, was the possibility of starting fresh in new surroundings if the right opportunities presented themselves somewhere along the way. I don't believe they had much money at all at the time, other than his current investments and he obviously did not see the largest stock market decline in history, Novemeber 1931, on the horizon.
The new car could very well have been preceived as an investment towards a relatively trouble-free trip and desire to avoid any unforeseen and potentially much costlier breakdown expenses. In addition, buying a new car does not necessarily mean you are flush with cash. They are often perceived as status symbols and I have to wonder about his true intentions in the timing of the new car purchase and his first and only visit, not to mention one of the very few contacts he had, with his sister in California.
I just don't believe Anna would have stuck her neck out by lying that she saw a phantom shoebox on the kitchen closet top shelf. She was certainly uncomfortable enough on the stand just by being simply evasive. Wasn't it Reilly who asked her to do this? I can't see Fisher asking her to do this. Yes, I think she would have foreseen enormous difficulties reeling out a phony and implausible story that might not have meshed well with her husbands and caused he to become flustered on the stand. Wilentz would have left her in tatters. Anna and friends obviously had many meetings prior to the trial and I'm sure this topic would have been one of the hot ones to align most effectively with Kloppenburg's own testimony about the shoebox.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 26, 2006 7:08:58 GMT -5
Excellent points Joe! The shoe box issue is troublesome for another reason. If Anna would not testify to seeing it, then are we to believe her testimony about why she didn't? Is it believable that an orderly homemaker would be oblivious to that mysterious box on the top shelf? If that area was constantly prone to water leakage as claimed , would the box and the other items on that shelf just be left to soak up the water? Now if Anna knows that the box was never on that shelf , then she knows her husband is lying about it. What does she make of this? Would this not give her cause to wonder about the rest of Richard's stories?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 29, 2006 9:15:55 GMT -5
Anna, as seen in the trial testimony, was demonstrably evasive about what she had and hadn't seen on the top shelf of her closet. And yes, I'm sure it would have given her serious cause to question some of the very foundation of her husband's explanations, if she was not already aware of the truth behind his role in the kidnapping.
I believe it was Anna herself, who claimed she had previously warned Mr. Rauch, that some structural damage might occur if the water leak, which they had complained about since moving there in late 1931, was not attended to. We know this was clearly not a condition which suddenly appeared on a rainy Sunday afternoon in August of 1934, when Hauptmann claimed to have "rediscovered" the shoebox. So we have a continuous problem condition, one which they were very aware of, and one which would have been constantly on their minds whenever water from heavy rains ran down the pipe that was routed through their kitchen closet.
One question that I've previously posted, is how could anyone in a position of familiarity with that shelf and it's wet condition, have overlooked the unusual odour which would have resulted from shoebox cardboard and paper currency continuously soaking up water over a period of nine months, from December, 1933 to August, 1934? This odour would have been very noticeable within the confines of such a small, confined and unventilated space, everytime the door was opened.
How likely then is it that Anna or Richard would never have noticed something as significant as a mysterious, soaking wet package on the top shelf of the kitchen closet, the same shelf Anna had a number of household items on, all this time? Given the scope and obvious dedication she paid to her domestic routine, is there any possibility the shoebox was ever there as Hauptmann had claimed? Anna may be given credit for trying to help out as her husband who she knew was in a fight for his very life, but this whole shoebox story still presents itself as something unsavoury for for both of them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2006 10:12:05 GMT -5
Joe, no matter how I look at this shoe box episode I can not believe that Anna at the very least didn't know something was amiss . As you said, how could this wet box escape anyones notice for so long? If it was there I find it completely unbelievable that she never investigated it. If she knew it wasn't there, what does she make of Richard's Fisch story? How could this be a fabrication without a resultant concern on her part as to it's necessity? If it is not a fabrication how could she possibly be oblivious to it's existence and contents?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2006 10:36:31 GMT -5
Irrelevant? He had a job when jobs were scarce, bought a new car, and quit to take a lenghty "vacation" so I think that's hardly irrelevant circumstances. What is your source for Anna quitting? According to Mrs. Fredrickson's statement she quit on June 22nd, 1932.
On what basis of fact are you drawing your conclusion this "vacation" was really a "re-location?" They put their things in storage and brought Kloppenberg along. Was he going to move out there for a new start as well? I have never seen anything that suggests what you are leaning towards anywhere.
Of course, but the point is why does a man with no money quit his job after just spending his saving to buy a new car - to go on a cross-country vacation no less?
What status does someone hold who has a new car but no money, no job, and no where to live? The action, in the context that Hauptmann was broke, is irrational.
Yes Reilly asked her and she refused because she hadn't seen it. That's the bottom line here because she could have simply said she did when she didn't. That's what bolsters what she was willing to say happened regardless of anything else.
I hate to be a pest here Joe but I am needing your source for the Hauptmann's complaint about this leak in that closet. I think you are confusing this leak with a different one.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2006 8:41:46 GMT -5
Not to get between this debate, but Michael do you believe the box was never there in which case Anna could not have seen it and must have wondered about her husband's claim to the contrary? Or do you think it was there and in all that time in such a small kitchen and pantry Anna somehow never encountered it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2006 21:06:42 GMT -5
Of course you or anybody else can get into this debate. I certainly want everyone to give their 2 cents in any thread - especially one's that I post in.... It looks like you've taken a page out of my play book Kevin by asking me this. I believe Kloppenberg saw Fisch give Hauptmann a box which fit the dimensions. It's logical to assume, if Hauptmann wanted to tuck in away that night, that it went into that closet. I also believe Anna saying she never saw it. The big question is what was in the box. Maybe it wasn't ransom money. We also don't know how long it may have been there. We do know the money in the garage had been wet and that this closet did have a leak in it during the time period in question. This is one of those things where we simply have too many unknowns in order to solve our problem. Hauptmann lied about several things - especially concerning the money. However, this is a coherent story which seems to fit in with several differing and truthful sets of circumstances. I find that many times we apply what we know in order to support or dis-prove a popular idea or theory. What if, for example, Hauptmann was giving a box to Fisch which had been in that closet? What if this box had been exchanged between them at times previous to this occasion? We just don't know. I suppose my answer is that I simply can not be sure yet. I do believe Anna because the easiest way to assist is to simply lie, and I do believe she could have missed the box. But - there is no way I believe Hauptmann would accept this box and never open it or forget about it until it got wet.
|
|
|
Post by ELYSSA on May 5, 2006 12:21:05 GMT -5
You probably won't believe this but I just found something I bought over 2 1/2 years ago. When I found out I was going to be a grandma for the first time I started buying little things here and there. I got a boot box from a pair of my husbands work boots and started putting things in, (bibs, pacifiers, rattles, booties) just small things. When the box was full I put it on the top shelf of a hall closet and started filling up another box. This is a closet outside my bathroom door where I store bedding, winter blankets, quilts and extra towels that sort of stuff. My grandson will be 3 in Oct. and I just found the box while I was putting a new baby quilt (for my expected grandbaby) on the shelf. I guess the box got pushed to the back of the shelf by accident and I just forgot about it. Made me think about Anna's closet, anythings possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2008 18:32:16 GMT -5
I had left Mrs. Hauptmann at the Stacy-Trent in the company of Jean Adams, and a Mirror newspaper man "Mike." I cam back from the Death House almost immediately after the execution, and sent my secretary up to Mrs. Hauptmann's room. Mrs. Hauptmann was in the bedroom, and she told Jean Adams that it was all over, and Jean asked her to stay with her while she told Mrs. Hauptmann. Mrs. Hauptmann became hysterical, and she ran in to the bathroom and locked the door. She had threatened to commit suicide. Everybody was hammering on the door when I arrived, and finally one of the ministers conversed with her in German, and she opened the door and came out. I went with her into the second room of the suite, and tried to talk with her. She was very badly broken up and it was almost impossible to reason with her or talk to her. She sobbed and cried and threw herself across the bed, beat her hands against the door, and gave every evidence of extreme sincere grief. In the meantime, the Mirror man, and another cameraman and a couple of reporters were trying to get her to talk, and to get pictures, but I insisted that they get out. I stayed only a few minutes and then left. Mrs. Hauptmann went back to New York that night. (Lloyd Fisher)
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 20, 2009 17:49:42 GMT -5
A few thoughts, off the cuff...
First: I've been to Highfields. My uncle and I drove there from the Princeton area a couple of years ago, during the day. We went there right after we visited the Trenton State Police archives and met Mr. Falzini.
Mr. Falzini himself gave us directions to Highfields. Even WITH those directions, in the middle of the day, we never would have found the place, were it not for a sign that pointed Highfields out to us.
How on earth could Hauptmann have found the place from the Bronx, in the evening, in bad weather? If it was indeed him, then he either had to scout the place pretty well beforehand, or he got extremely lucky.
Given all the other strokes of luck he'd supposedly experience as kidnapper (i.e. being there the ONE Tuesday night the family was there), it's hard to say it adds up.
Second: Regarding the possibility of Anna Hauptmann having an affair with Fisch...she spent roughly 50 years trying to clear her husband's name.
While it may be understandable why she kept it quiet during the 30's (if it were, in fact, true), after the passing of time and her only son growing up, wouldn't it be in her best interests to admit the affair? Admitting the after in the 1980's, for example, would not harm anyone, with the exception of Manfred perhaps, but he was an adult.
To the best of my knowledge, Fred Hauptmann has never, EVER commented publicly on his father. So, we really don't know how he'd react to finding out his mother had an affair--if it did happen. But it certainly seems within the realm of sense that if his father was innocent, and admitting the affair would help clear Bruno's name, then Anna would have done it.
Of course, she may not have admitted anything because it didn't happen, or she may have kept her mouth shut to protect her son, to the day she died.
But the drive to Hopewell, and finding Highfields, bothers me greatly. When did Hauptmann go there, how often, and if he had gone, why wasn't his car remembered by someone? I don't mean Ben Lupica.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2009 5:55:34 GMT -5
That's a very good point. I have a "strange car" file which is very thick. The Locals noticed everything different, strange, or out of place. It's why so many people believed a "Local" was involved.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 16, 2012 16:07:44 GMT -5
I am reluctant to equate naivete with complicity.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 16, 2012 19:02:08 GMT -5
i dont think anna was involved at all
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 21:31:09 GMT -5
I don't think she was involved in any way. I am re-posting this letter for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen it already: Attachments:
|
|