kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 8:36:58 GMT -5
How was Anna able to support herself and Manfred after Richard's arrest and execution? Was there someone who helped her out financially? Could she really believe her husband had nothing to do with the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 18, 2006 12:28:04 GMT -5
I know someone who was friends with Anna and she worked two jobs after her husband was executed to support herself and Manfred. My friend considered her an extraordinary woman, who truly believed her husband had nothing to do with the kidnapping. I'm sure that for a verdict defender like you this is impossible to believe, but there are others, like me, who wonder about how involved he was in the crime.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 12:44:30 GMT -5
Carol, it may come as a surprise to you, but I am not a "verdict defender". Personally I have complete disdain for anyone who professes to have an interest in solving or understanding this mystery and does so with a pre- arranged agenda. To take sides in this issue is to act with extreme prejudice which is only another form of ignorance. The facts are non-negotiable. If for some reason unknown to me, people wish to act with such prejudice in a feeble and fruitless attempt to propagate some agenda of theirs, so be it. I have no interest in causes of this kind. I would prefer to actually attempt to discern the truth, whatever and where ever that may lead. If others wish to keep throwing out nonsense and spinning theories without foundation with utter disregard for facts and truths, all I can say is good luck.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 18, 2006 13:03:36 GMT -5
There's no question Anna carried on with the kind of resolve and determination needed to overcome the personal challenges she and Mannfried would have faced. I think she operated a mail order business for many years out of Philadelphia and Mannfried, now 72 and married with no children, worked many years for the state of Pennsylvania.
I admire her loyalty to her husband, but cannot understand how she could have believed he had nothing to do with the kidnapping and the extortion in light of the cold, hard evidence against him. She seemed to have a keen analytical mind well into her seventies and constantly thought about the case. At the same time, she seemed to maintain a deep and unresolved bitterness towards the state for prosecuting and sending her husband to the electric chair.
I've often wondered if this resentment was based on her knowing the death was accidental and the prosecution's portrayal of him as a cold-blooded animal. I believe she knew more than she ever told anyone or let on.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 13:12:43 GMT -5
Yes Joe, I think I would agree, especially your last point. Even a non-verdict defender would have a difficult time explaining away a lot of the evidence. I was thinking, when posting this question if there was any evidence of a "hidden hand" helping her out. Did she receive payments for speaking engagements?
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 18, 2006 13:24:47 GMT -5
Joe & Kevkon: There's no point in my saying anymore about what my friend told me about Anna, or her belief in her husband's innocence because you'll believe whatever you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 18, 2006 13:44:57 GMT -5
I think the term "VDer" or Verdict Defender is over-used. Of course I am the guiltiest of all guilty parties because I probably use it more then anyone else. The fact is a VDer is someone who believes the Trial was 100% correct, 100% fair, and that Hauptmann was a Lone-Wolf kidnapper with no help and no Confederates or Partners - end of story.
In reality there aren't many people who believe this. Sure a few old tired dinosaurs are still hanging in there, why is anybodies guess, but 99% of people are on board with the position that there's more to this crime then Hauptmann.
Instead of shouting "don't look under that rock!" everyone here is running to lift it up to see what's under it. I believe we are all discussing the case in good faith, that is, no one is posting things we know aren't true and no one is presenting their opinions as fact.
That's what is most important as far as I am concerned.
My opinion as to Anna is that she believed her husband 100%. She never trusted Fisch and believed wholeheartedly that he was responsible for getting her husband into the mess he was in. She, like so many others, accepted and believed Hauptmann was making it "big time" on Wall Street...and why shouldn't she? Whenever she called he was always down there speculating. She saw the proof of his investments and even saw him investing and making profits for friends and relatives. She was loyal yes and its my opinion she went to her grave believing he was 100% innocent of kidnapping and murder.
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 18, 2006 13:45:14 GMT -5
When you initiate a poll about Hauptmann's criminal tendencies and one of the choices is whether or not he was psychotic, which I see no evidence of, you reveal an obvious prejudice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 14:21:51 GMT -5
Well Carol. I see you definately have an agenda. I am sorry if a poll asking if anyone thinks Hauptmann was suffering from a mental disorder is worse than him simply being a murderer. The fact is, whether you agree or not, there is ample evidence of Hauptmann exhibiting abnormal behaviour. I believe the famous writer and poet Ford Madox Ford opined that just the exposure to the Great War would be enough to explain Hauptmann's actions. Michael, I know what you are saying about the "VDers" and I respect you for being open in your thinking and in your board. As I said before, I have no agenda regarding this case. Does that mean I have no theory as to what happened, of course not. I have to go by the facts and the facts, so far, indicate that Hauptmann was guilty. I don't know that he was guilty alone as I think there is far too much in that regard to be fully explored. For those of you, like Carol and others, who have already decided that Hauptmann was innocent, I would say this. Try to respect different points of view than your own and present facts to prove your position. Do the work and research and don't rely on emotional arguement. Who knows you might prove your point.
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 18, 2006 18:31:39 GMT -5
I do not have an agenda, unless you think getting to the truth is an agenda. At one time I did think Hauptmann was completely innocent, but I have had to rethink my position I know feel he may have been involved. However, I don't believe for a minute that he murdered the baby, or was mentally ill.
I don't believe for a second that you are completely open minded about this case and am not going to try and convince you that I am either. I also see a lot of evidence being glossed over if it doesn't fit the Hauptmann as main player routine. What about Isidor Fisch? What about Condon's odd behavior and inconsistent statements? Don't tell me you believe he was just a nice old man who wanted to reunite mother and son?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 18, 2006 23:13:13 GMT -5
To Laura Joe and Kevkon profess cold hard facts, then babble about Hauptmans drawings, then fantasize how he was useing the refrigerator drawing to store CAL Jr.'s body. The only part of the case they are able to recite is the lawyer deceptions that Wilentz was able to put over on a drunkard lawyer that Represented Hauptman. They are trying to overpower people on this board with their miss-conceptions of fact, and try to badger and belittle anyone who sees through the deceptions pulled in court to electrocute an innocent man. They try to give the impression of inside knowledge, and opine about our violation of saintly public officials that were prosecuted for being on the take. Joe and Kevkon stop badgering people who enjoy learning the real facts of this case?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 18, 2006 23:56:33 GMT -5
Laura, I think the question of open mindedness is somewhat relative. If by it you mean that I am unable to dismiss the hard evidence , the tangible evidence of tis case which links Hauptmann to the murder, then you are correct. If someone, anyone can refute this evidence in a factual way, I will be all ears. Unfortunately, all I hear from those who claim Hauptmann is innocent is innuendo and conspiracy. The fact that there are suspicious characters involved in this case such as Fisch and Condon does not negate Hauptmann's guilt no matter what spin you care to put on it.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 18, 2006 23:59:35 GMT -5
I couldn't agree with you more, Rita. If Hauptmann planned to store Charlie's body in an ice box where was he going to put the ice box? In the garage? Highly unlikely since his downstairs neighbor Victor Schussler had access to the garage.
I definitely felt badgered by Kevkon, which caused me to delete my account and that's why some of my posts now appear under a username. But I'm back and intend to stay around.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 19, 2006 0:10:33 GMT -5
I could give you many facts that bring the extent of Hauptmann's guilt into question, but why should I waste my time? When it comes to this case you're almost as close minded as Allen is.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Feb 19, 2006 0:15:16 GMT -5
I think it should be said that Anna's continued defence of her husband throughout her life would have to be at least partially based on her own knowledge of his whereabouts at certain critical times. She provides an alibi for him in 1932 for March 1 and for April 2. In 1933, it's on Nov 26 - all crucial dates in this case. As such it would eliminate him from involvement, in her mind. While some can and do question the accuracy of her recollections, she was in no doubt in her own mind regarding his movements. I think this is why she was so loyal.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 0:18:56 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 0:21:32 GMT -5
Thank you pzb63
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 0:29:05 GMT -5
To Carol Great news, we have to put a true quest for information back into the board, and for each person to contribute information without fear of rebuke by people who appear to become unhinged by other people discovering the truth. Each one of the members of the board have contributed to discovery, and for this reason these morons have the gall to represent themselves as guardians of fact, when that would certainly take a higher intelligence than what they posses.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 19, 2006 0:42:27 GMT -5
They all have tunnel vision when it comes to this case. You have to see things their way otherwise you haven't done any research and are basing your opinions on emotion. They can't even except the fact that Anna believed in her husband's innocence.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 0:59:39 GMT -5
to pzb63 I have no doubt that Anna had to be telling the truth, and that certainly is reflected in her life long quest to clear Hauptman. People who talk of the fact that Hauptman was convicted, clearly do not understand how court procedure works. Lawyers use tricks to outwit the other side, and losing a case does not mean the defendant or plaintiff were wrong. In a court procedure there are manuevers and deadlines for their use, and whoever can outwit the other side wins with their use. The court guarenteed Hauptman's conviction by assigning a drunk to defend Hauptman, and that is a fact for our guardians of the fact detractors that posted above.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 1:25:23 GMT -5
To Carol, pzb63 I discount nearly everthing they write as wasted space, especialy since they seem to ramble on ridiculous items like shutters, wood, ladders. I regard these items as pertinent as they represent real facts that have real explantions pro and con, but not their attempts at presenting them in only a way that rigidly points in their prefered direction against Hauptman.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 8:06:59 GMT -5
I personally feel its a blessing that we have so much diversity here. Everyone has certain topics they are more tuned in on, and of course we aren't always going to agree. After all, if we did then there would be nothing to discuss. That's why its so important to examine each and every post here. I learn from just about everyone of them. For example, I am not big on the Mob connections but every time Rita posts she sends me rushing to my filing cabinet to look something up. Joe has always been of the position these sketches in the notebook mean something and I have always disagreed. Enter Kevin's observations and now I am re-thinking my position and looking very closely at what they are saying about it. I think we all need to discuss what we feel is important. However, we also need to have the freedom to say what's on our minds. If that is disagreement or criticism then so be it. I don't want to post an observation that everyone here disagrees with but they stay silent.... I want it to be challenged if someone here finds fault with it.
The one thing I like is that we keep our opinions and facts separate. A rumor starts somewhere so I think we shouldn't shrug it off but we should never confuse the rumor with fact, that is, unless our discussions and research prove it.
As I think everyone knows by now... I sometimes play "devil's advocate" to test theories or ideas. I also possess a strong conviction this crime couldn't have been pulled off solo and in my eyes needed an inside connection. I believe Hauptmann is involved but I hesitate to say to what degree. As presented in Court it appears he was a one-man band but 99% of us don't at least consider this to be untrue - so if any of this evidence looks shady then we must take a very hard look at it.
I have never seen any indication that Mrs. Hauptmann had any idea her husband was involved in this crime. If someone has something then I am all ears.
We have strong personalities here. There's something about this case that seems to hit more nerves then any other topics - to include both politics and religion. I suppose that's why its so damn interesting....We are drawn to it because of all the unanswered questions that surround it. There are too many loose ends and when you pull on them everything starts to fall apart. We could have someone who knows absolutely nothing about the case walk off the street, read a few of ours posts, and make a common sense observation that none of us ever thought of.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 19, 2006 8:55:56 GMT -5
Yes Michael I agree completely. I think people often forget that these forums are public and as such are visited by many people, some of whom have little knowledge of this case. That would include children looking for information about the LKC. We therefore have to be responsible for what we post. To this end all posts must be subject to rebuttal. And hopefully the debate that follows will reveal the strengths and weaknesses of an argument, then everyone gains.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for laura on Feb 19, 2006 9:57:34 GMT -5
the first emotion annna had when she learned of this was anger. she thought the whole charge was rediculous. if she was his alibi why wasn't she charged? she and manfred slept in the same bed because they were so poor; of cours the amatuer psychiatrists would probably come up with something for thay
|
|
|
Post by rick for group on Feb 19, 2006 19:09:58 GMT -5
There will always be a fragile truce, like the one linking Hammas and Israel, between the Verdict Accepters who would like to dig BRH up and electrocute him again and again for crimes not listed in 1935 and those who see a more wide ranging and complex coverup of the real crime. Fights and suicide bombings will likely break out when either side feels attacked, diminished or publicly humiliated. One group or the other may want to go underground and avoid public scrutiny or lurkers who never post anyway, thus pursuing their ideas in Peace.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 19, 2006 19:39:21 GMT -5
I've always thought that they might like to dig Hauptmann up and fry him again. Or maybe try lethal injection, or hanging. VDers say it has to be this way and that's it. But I don't think it was a real kidnapping agree there was a cover-up.
I haven't decided whether I'll go underground or not.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 20:56:51 GMT -5
You loose perspective when you propose rebuttal, as why should we single out every post we disagree with, and put them on the hot seat? If that happens then you have a one way forum, where only self proclaimed experts dare make any posts. I some times only read others posts, because I have nothing to ad, disagree, or don't have any answer, but I do not have the right to cross examine others, because I have some delusion, and even if I do have an answer I might appreciate learning more from their perspective. I dont think we have the right or even some professed responsibility, to make someone else believe what I think as fact. I am not a lawyer, but have handled two court casses over an eight year period challenging professional lawyers to tears, and know that winning or looseing is not proof of right or wrong in a court. The fact that Hauptman lost only means his lawyer was not effective, and maybee was drunk most of the time. Lawyers use tricks of law to disable the other side, and it does not mean you or they are right, just faster on the draw, so that calling court deciscions fact is laughable, and a product of a mind that doesn't understand law.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 20, 2006 9:35:05 GMT -5
Rita, you have a free pass here because of your "condition" and , after all your posts do add a certain comic relief to an otherwise serious matter. To the " others" however, what right do you have to make such an allegation against those who believe that BRH was guilty? How can you say that such a belief has to result in the belief that he deserved to be executed? Why is it so hard to understand that one can believe in Hauptmann's guilt without supporting the decision to execute him?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 20, 2006 21:41:35 GMT -5
To Kevkon Do you look in a mirror when you right trash? Your deduction add to a net of zero, and nobody realy understands what you say, mostly as a result of negating the very premise you start your posts start with. I feel each post you make seems as wasted space, because there is no conclusions to basic statements, and you realy need to go back to school to learn creative writing in order to finish whatever it is your trying to state.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 6:54:21 GMT -5
What "condition" does Rita have? I enjoy what she has to say. She has a historic perspective that others don't. kevkon needs to lighten up!
|
|