|
Post by dryan on Feb 10, 2006 0:13:24 GMT -5
I was wondering what would happen if, following Kevin's good advice, we were to take up various aspects of the evidence during the investigation and the trial and offer our best thinking on them.
If we start with the alibi, one could say it was pretty feeble. At most he only showed up for work that morning. He obviously had time to get down to Hopewell.
If there was a conspiracy, why did someone who had a lot at risk like an illegal immigrant, not have a better alibi set up?
What are the board's thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Feb 10, 2006 7:29:49 GMT -5
where did Hauptman claim he was the rest of the day?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2006 7:33:45 GMT -5
I think this crime was prepared for and set-up to occur during a weekend. The sudden possibility of the Tuesday snatch was an unforeseeable circumstance that gave those involved little time with the window of opportunity presented to them. If you believe Hauptmann was in Hopewell this night then his showing up for work that morning seems to bolster this position.
Now the alibi for Hauptmann that's most important for me is picking up Anna. Of course even if he is there and not in Hopewell this fact doesn't exclude him from being involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 10, 2006 13:34:22 GMT -5
Funny I was just think about the alibi yesterday. I know some people (see other site) believe the entire reason for the timing of the kidnap was due to Anna working late and Lindbergh's speaking engagement. I really can't buy into this theory. For starters, 7:30 doesn't and couldn't work for Hauptmann. At best he would get back at 9pm and that is stretching it, more than likely he returned around 11. This alibi would actually work against Hauptmann if he did , in fact, usually pick her up after work as not doing so would be more noticable. Second if the kidnapping was designed around a possible alibi Hauptmann ( or anyone) would want to insure that he was remembered by witnesses. That is , after all, the essence of a good alibi. Yet Hauptmann does not have this going for him. The Majestic apt. alibi, as Dryan points out, is also lame. Once again there is no real alibi in his actions there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2006 21:05:00 GMT -5
Kathy,
He remembered simply walking around...etc. I believe there were a couple of differing accounts but all amounted to the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 11, 2006 7:35:03 GMT -5
michael, seems like he would have had a better alibi after all that time.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 11, 2006 8:13:42 GMT -5
It makes more sense to me to discover who else had airtight alibis with supporting caste of characters and documentation: like Fisch for instance. He was subbing in for Charlie the Pieman Schleser at a loan payment. An elderly couple backed him up/ very convenient.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 11, 2006 12:20:15 GMT -5
At the moment of his apprehension, or at least when they took him back to his apartment, the question was asked and Hauptmann replied he could not remember where he was that day. When Anna was asked about the evening, she replied at first that she could not remember March 1, but when told it was a Tuesday, she went back to the idea that her husband had picked her up - because he "usually" did, and then later embellished it with details about how cold it was, etc, etc.
If you were expecting to be questioned, might you not have had something better to offer?Perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 11, 2006 13:07:23 GMT -5
Didn't he say he went to radio city looking for work?
|
|
|
Post by kathy for carol on Feb 11, 2006 14:35:30 GMT -5
Carol, I think thats right and it makes sense that after going all the way into town that he would stay and look for work. I think rick is right, I'd be more supicious of a pat alibi than one that seems vague for a non-important date.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2006 18:02:21 GMT -5
(I am falling behind in these posts)
Here's the problem....
Lt. Finn commented about how calm Hauptmann was during his arrest. He said it was almost like he had been prepared to be arrested....
I could look it up if anyone is interested....
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 11, 2006 18:03:47 GMT -5
But there are certain that stand out -- Pearl Harbor, Kennedy Assassination, Katrina, etc.
Still, there is, as I also suggested, something to be said about not having a pat answer.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 14, 2006 7:56:44 GMT -5
Yes, this pretty much makes BRH the Dumbest Criminal of the Century? he has no alibi, he leaves behind ladder from his own attic and a 3/4"chisel from his toolbox. Even better he disquises his handwriting to look like a German immigrant. Then.....he passes $10 Gold Certs in his own car with his own plates. Fisch on the other hand has a super air tight alibi for 1 March 32 from Charlie Schleser over at Henry and Erna Jungs with singed documents! Within weeks Fisch leaves the Bronx for safer pasteurs--BRH stays behind. That Bruno is a very clever guy? Practically a genius.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for rick on Feb 15, 2006 20:23:54 GMT -5
rick i agree. Hauptmann planned this crime for at least a year but failed to construct a ladder that would hold his weight. Think what a great a job he would have done if he'd been an accountant and if he'd a had accomplices, then he wouldn't have had to rely on someone as stable as condon!
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Feb 15, 2006 21:48:24 GMT -5
Hi Kathy...is there anything else a really dumb criminal could do to get better caught and fried? Not very much. Oh yes he could have singed the ransom notes...Bruno or Onurb to fool them? After 75 years some London strangler "nails" the symbol colde and then noone believes him? Duh, it cant be the Vesica Pisces because the sign of the Zodiac for Pisces is 2 Fisch? And then, even though the nursery note has a semblence of the VeeP on it with the 3 holes, CAL does not accept or believe that the Bronx Blackmailers actually hold Charlie? He chases Curtis and the secret gang while stalling for more time? [does "Red" plus "Blue" equal "Violet"] If I could vote in Michael ballot I would vote for "all the above". Also, Ellis in his earlier days said that all criminals have an elaborate alibi ready for crimes they commit. BRH said "I cant remember"/ end quote
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Feb 23, 2006 14:15:33 GMT -5
Has it ever been considered that Hauptmann didn't need an alibi, he told the truth about that night and so did Anna because neither of them were connected to Hopewell that night or any other. I think they were connected to Fisch, but I don't think they even knew how he had connected them until he was gone and it was to late.When it comes to ALIBIS,what about LINDBERGH, was he questioned to see if he had an alibi, I don't think he was ever questioned about anything that happened before he pulled into the driveway the night of March 1, Why didn't he go to the dinner that night, and what did he do all day? Didn't he stay the night before in Englewood? He had the opportunity to talk to Betty and make arrangements for her to go to Hopewell the next day, The phone call asking Betty to come was just part of the game, an explanation as to why they would be staying longer than usual. Charlie could have been injured or become seriously ill the 1st day they arrived in Hopewell , no one thought it was serious enough to get help or get a doctor, by the time they realized how serious matters were it was time for damage control . If there's going to be publicity let's make sure it doesn't make us look bad, that would be the stand CAL would take.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for elyssa on Feb 23, 2006 15:06:45 GMT -5
I think that if you believe Anna wasn't involved then you are right. I don't believe she was involved. Both seemed hard working and extremely thrifty. i think Anna had yrs to reflect on this and if she had thought Richard involved she at the least would have just quietly let it go. I read that she remembered clearly finding out about the "kidnapping" when Richard dropped her off at work the next AM. I'm sure she would have thought about where he'd been the night before if he hadn't picked her up. She said very vocally that if Rcihard was quilty so was she. I fell she was certain of his innocence and Anne always had questions.
|
|
|
Post by rick for elyssa on Feb 23, 2006 15:17:39 GMT -5
Yes, yes and yes. The part thats harder to figure out is the ransom note with the crudely disquised symbol and the 3-part ladder. Who brings them out to Highfields on days notice? It could relate to Fisch, whaleley and sharpe meeting in the luncheonette and in the mystical church in January and Feb 1932? Maybe Whateley and Sharpe were phisching for an extortion gang to act as cover for Charlies disappearance? Sounds awfully complicated but it all depends upon wherefor Charlie is headed. PS CAL never needs any alibiis--hes God. Its Fisch with the airtight alibi.....maybe Fisch steals Rail 16 when he puts the sealskins up in BRHs attic?
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 23, 2006 18:20:28 GMT -5
Not long after Anna Hauptmann filed her lawsuit against the state of New Jersey in 1981, Anne Lindbergh was interviewed on TV and when asked about the lawsuit she said something like "no matter what the cost to her family she wanted the truth to come out." I think she always had questions and wondered about the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 26, 2006 23:17:31 GMT -5
The Lindbergh's knew Keyhoe and Breckenridge, but may also have known others like Biritela, Casey, Fisch, Henkle, Hauptman, through a covert operation that CAL may have been working on. Casey for those that don't know that period Casey had a private intelligence operation that could easily compare to CIA, and is the reason so maney people consulted him.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 23, 2006 14:37:16 GMT -5
Hauptmann was owed about half of the money found at his house.Chances are he planned to keep it all in any case. However, just as a matter of curiosity how could he have gone about returning (now illegal) gold certs to the Fisch family without it's coming back to bite him on the behind? How was he going to get it there, past customs? If it got to Germany it would have been exchanged. Wouldn't this hunk of gold certs have been tracked right back to Hauptmann? Germany would have known about the US and it's gold certs........ Have sometimes wondered if Fisch took any ransom money back to Germany with him. Being the con man, hot money man, he would have been more canny in unloading it, I would think.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Oct 24, 2006 8:55:13 GMT -5
mairi, i think if he'd been too worried about the exchange he woudn't have been passing the money himself. if hed been involved in the ransom i'm sure he wouldn't have been passing this money so obviously and so close to home, not to mention discussing it with a gas station attendant
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 24, 2006 12:08:13 GMT -5
Leah, in addition if I was the kidnapper I wouldn't maintain my life in the Bronx. I would have skipped town or would I have felt safer to dissolve the money in the Bronx then move on?
What is the purpose of wiring my garage for security? Would I be protecting the money from the police? I don't think so. If they got that far you are were caught anyway. My contention is he was protecting the money from those that might be after the money ala other possible confederate members. If Hauptmann held such a high profile among these criminals what would this security device do?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 24, 2006 13:59:17 GMT -5
Gary, I don't think there actually ever was a "security device" installed in Hauptmann's garage. There might have been an electric light at one point, though. Let me ask you this, what was the purpose of a loaded pistol (with a chambered round ) concealed in the hollowed out framing block? It wouldn't be readily accessible if theft deterrence was what he had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 24, 2006 15:31:41 GMT -5
Hey Kev,
In Hauptmann's reply to the investigators it was an improved alarm system to scare off potential theft of his car. Maybe it is better put how affective could it be? I do agree it seems inaffective for the trouble.
Maybe its like one of those ladder like gizmos that look primitive and poorly built but if it incriminated Hauptmann it would be described as intelligently designed. The gun there or not there may not be important. I don't catch any insignificance or non significance of being anywhere special but to be hidden because of past use or future use.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2006 19:10:28 GMT -5
I don't believe this was a security alarm. It wasn't always there, and when it was it seems to have simply been a line he ran out to the garage whenever he was there at night so he could see.
Gary makes an excellent point concerning why Hauptmann chose to stay in the Bronx. What is holding him there? I think if we find the answer then we'll have some other names of people who had involvement.
The gun in my opinion is for protection. It's with the money because if someone is coming for him they don't shoot until they get the money. It proves to me he knew of others who knew he had this loot.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 25, 2006 6:42:05 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. The problem is that we are rational, intelligent , and honest ( at least you and Gary are, anyway) and so look at everything accordingly. But look at how many criminals have stayed in Dodge even after committing a crime or crimes and despite an active police investigation. It makes no sense, yet it happens all the time.
It only prooves to me that he felt the need for a concealed weapon. Who can say in what enterprise he was engaged in that required some firepower.
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Apr 12, 2018 20:22:07 GMT -5
hey! I'm really interested in this. We are doing a school project on this I want to know as much as possible about the case. Also if you can find anything on Anna Hauptmann testimony it would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Apr 13, 2018 17:52:05 GMT -5
hey! I'm really interested in this. We are doing a school project on this I want to know as much as possible about the case. Also if you can find anything on Anna Hauptmann testimony it would be greatly appreciated. Hi Nikki!
You can find news coverage including Anna Hauptmann's testimony on January 30, 1935, at the following link:
bklyn.newspapers.com/image/52774400/
It is a free website for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
You could also try the website www.archive.org which has the FBI Lindbergh Kidnapping Files (prior to Hauptmann's arrest) as well as some of the older books on the Lindbergh kidnapping. You may have to register to "borrow" some of the books, but it is free.
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 14, 2018 17:26:14 GMT -5
Anna Hauptmann lived for over 90 years. The testimony she gave at her husband's trial was only the beginning of a lifelong quest to maintain her husband's innocence and good name. At an advanced age, she brought a suit against the state of New Jersey, asking that Bruno be pardoned posthumously. The suit failed.
|
|