Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 11, 2017 18:13:50 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 11, 2017 18:13:50 GMT -5
We already know there were Tuesday nights when Richard did not turn up at the bakery and Anna had to make her own way home, or he turned up later than the time agreed upon. So regardless of whether Anna was at the bakery that night, it wouldn't necessarily help Richard. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just noting that records and cancelled paycheques would have been much more fundamental to her defense if she had say, been on trial as an accomplice. Anna testified that she remembered Richard picking her up that evening but she offers no objective proof or point of reference for the evening, nothing to conclude it was March 1. There is little credibility to her basic claim and the testimony of various eyewitnesses for Hauptmann being at the bakery that evening is very weak.
Given the usual zeal in establishing presence in time and place, as seen in the matter of Hauptmann's Majestic payroll records, with a reporter actually running here and there behind the scenes, it's a bit surprising more attention wasn't paid towards someone gathering up the bakery payroll records, if there were any. I don't think we can just assume it is sleight of hand or negligence on the part of the prosecution, defense or case investigators not doing their job that we don't have them today. But.. playing devil's advocate here for a minute, what if the records actually did reveal that Anna had not worked that evening? Would it then not demonstrate she was not where she "always was" and that night just happened to be March 1, thereby potentially compromising the prosecution's case that Hauptmann had acted alone and without her knowledge? Was her position perhaps being protected?
Case in point, why was Katy Fredericksen not asked to testify where she was on her Tuesday evenings off and specifically March 1, with details? If as Gardner asserts, she was having an affair and this became known to prosecution and defense, then it seems reasonable this avenue would not have been actively pursued by them for lack of relevance, implying a prior agreement within the proceedings to protect her character. Does that seem reasonable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 9:41:42 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 9:41:42 GMT -5
We already know there were Tuesday nights when Richard did not turn up at the bakery and Anna had to make her own way home, or he turned up later than the time agreed upon. So regardless of whether Anna was at the bakery that night, it wouldn't necessarily help Richard. It helps Hauptmann, Joe. Just because he missed picking up Anna sometimes does not prove his didn't pick her up this night(March 1) like Anna was claiming he did. Foley and Breslin knew that it was absolutely necessary to undermine what the Fredericksens were claiming, both Anna's presence at the bakery that night and that Hauptmann would usually call for her on nights she worked late. Wilentz made sure to do the same thing with the Flemington trial jury because he understood it was necessary to give the jury reasons to doubt the alibi that Anna's working that night at the bakery and Hauptmann being present there that night provided. Hauptmann could not, physically, be in two places at the same time. The jury would have to either believe Anna and Hauptmann or they would have to reject this claim. It is about breaking the only alibi Hauptmann had for March 1st. It meant everything to Hauptmann's defense. I really don't get this line of thinking, Joe. Her presence at the bakery that night gives credibility to the claim that Hauptmann did pick her up from work March 1. This is absolutely fundamental to Hauptmann's claim that he was not in Hopewell because he was in the Bronx at the Fredericksen's bakery. This is how Anna's presence was used to alibi Hauptmann: Trial Transcript - January 30, 1935 - Direct Testimony of Anna Hauptmann by Defense Attorney Edward Reilly - Pages 2917 and 2918Q(Reilly) - Now on Tuesday, March 1st, 1932 did your husband call for you that night? A(Anna) - He did.
Q(Reilly) - At what time? A(Anna) - Well, maybe it was seven o'clock, maybe quarter after seven, maybe quarter before seven. I don't know exactly the minutes.
Q(Reilly) - And how long did he remain there before you and he left to go home? A(Anna) - He was there until we went home together.
Q(Reilly) - Yes, about what time if you recall. A(Anna) - Oh, about half past nine, quarter to ten.
Q(Reilly) - And you went right home, did you? A(Anna) - We did.This is the alibi testified to in the Flemington courtroom by Anna. This is the alibi that puts Hauptmann in the Bronx the night of March 1, 1932. It puts him there because Anna is at the bakery that night. If you remove Anna from the bakery that night, you collapse Hauptmann's claim that he was there and not in Hopewell kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Its as simple as that. This is why the Fredericksens original claims had to be neutralized both in New York and in New Jersey. If proof in the form of timesheets and canceled checks had been offered in defense of Anna's presence at the bakery that night, it makes this alibi more credible. She was there! So Hauptmann might have been there also like Anna was testifying to in court. Katie Fredericksen told DA Foley she kept books. See Gardner, The Case That Never Dies, page 179. So what do you suppose happened to those books? Where Katie Fredericksen was that night was irrelevant to the point Wilentz wanted to make to the jury which was since Katie was not there she could not say with certainty that Anna Hauptmann was present in the bakery that night. The whole point was to give the jury a reason to doubt what Anna and Richard were claiming - Anna was at the bakery that night so Richard was too.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 11:35:44 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 12, 2017 11:35:44 GMT -5
All this doesn't matter because the court didn't believe them.
Hauptmann was probably in New Jersey while Anna was working. His ladder certainly was.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 12:45:22 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2017 12:45:22 GMT -5
This is Anna's alibi, Amy and its a very weak one because it was not corroborated with any level of certainty. And for Hauptmann to then essentially piggy back on it, means even less. Anna swore in her testimony that Richard came for her at the regular time and they drove home together later and went to bed right away. How does someone recall these details with such clarity over two and half years later in the absence of any other corroborative facts relating to that specific evening? If you're willing to give her a free pass on this sworn testimony, it's your prerogative, but I believe its a link that's likely to break in whatever chain of events you try to put together.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 12:50:07 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2017 12:50:07 GMT -5
I recall from the account in Fisher's book that both Hauptmanns essentially ran themselves ragged trying to come up with solid alibis for the night of March 1, with no success. You'd think it might not be such a problem given the input of family and friends.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 13:02:08 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2017 13:02:08 GMT -5
I'm not supposing anything. Show me proof that the books first existed and that they further identified whether Anna was or was not working that evening, and I might begin to.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 13:16:03 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Mar 12, 2017 13:16:03 GMT -5
Hauptmann could have very well have been in Hopewell on March 1. My guess is he probably was. But just because he was guilty of participation, doesn't mean he was doing it alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 13:53:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 13:53:26 GMT -5
This is Anna's alibi, Amy I disagree. Anna doesn't need an alibi. She is not being charged with anything. It is Hauptmann who needs an alibi. Anna's working at the bakery that night is the foundation for that alibi. I think you are misunderstanding me totally. I am not giving anyone a free pass. I am not taking sides here. I am just discussing what was used as an alibi for Hauptmann. If you think I am defending Hauptmann, you are sadly mistaken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 13:58:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 13:58:29 GMT -5
All this doesn't matter because the court didn't believe them. That is exactly right and that is why the Fredericksens had to be handled the way they were, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 14:03:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 14:03:29 GMT -5
I'm not supposing anything. Show me proof that the books first existed and that they further identified whether Anna was or was not working that evening, and I might begin to. Katie Frederickson said they did in 1934. She is the one who would need to show you the proof not me!!!! Since she is dead that is certainly not going to happen. I was merely telling you what she was claiming. Neither side ever presented anything. Why do you think that might be? I brought the point up to get any thoughts you might have about it. I was not attacking you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 14:05:38 GMT -5
Hauptmann could have very well have been in Hopewell on March 1. My guess his he probably was. But just because he was guilty of participation, doesn't mean he was doing it alone. Exactly! I believe that Hauptmann was involved and not a lone wolf. Thank you for making that clear!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 14:16:14 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Mar 12, 2017 14:16:14 GMT -5
To amy35 and all:
Did anyone ever stop to think that this Frederickson's Bakery business was so small and family-run that they had no need for paperwork like employees' time sheets. After all, Katy Fredericksen was the owner's wife, or perhaps even co-owner, surely not an ordinary employee. And aside from Anna Hauptmann, who else even worked there? And as for pay checks, things were on such a one-to-one basis that Christian Fredericksen could trust his wife and Mrs. Hauptmann and anyone else who might have worked there with keeping track of their own weekly hours and how much pay they were due.
Remember there was no income tax applicable to small wage earners at the time, and Social Security and workers comp and other government-mandated payroll deduction items didn't exist yet as well. So why couldn't a very small family-run business like Fredericksen's operate legally without any formal payroll records at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 14:23:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 14:23:10 GMT -5
To amy35 and all: Did anyone ever stop to think that this Frederickson's Bakery business was so small and family-run that they had no need for paperwork like employees' time sheets. After all, Katy Fredericksen was the owner's wife, or perhaps even co-owner, surely not an ordinary employee. And aside from Anna Hauptmann, who else even worked there? And as for pay checks, things were on such a one-to-one basis that Christian Fredericksen could trust his wife and Mrs. Hauptmann and anyone else who might have worked there with keeping track of their own weekly hours and how much pay they were due. Remember there was no income tax applicable to small wage earners at the time, and Social Security and workers comp and other government-mandated payroll deduction items didn't exist yet as well. So why couldn't a very small family-run business like Fredericksen's operate legally without any formal payroll records at all? All good points, Hurtelable. I have considered that Anna might have been paid in cash right out of the register. However, Katie Frederickson told DA Foley when she was being questioned about Anna Hauptmann that she kept books. So I am wondering why these books were never used by either side.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 14:42:30 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Mar 12, 2017 14:42:30 GMT -5
Hauptmann clearly built the ladder and was therefore involved from the beginning. But just given the mechanics of the crime and the crime scene itself, the lookout at Woodlawn, etc.--Hauptmann wasn't alone in this. On March 1, he could've been in Hopewell as one of the kidnappers; or that may not have been part of his job, and he did indeed pick up Anna from work that night. Or she could've been lying about that to give him an alibi. Either way, whether he picked her up or not, Hauptmann is involved and not as a lone wolf.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 12, 2017 17:45:13 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2017 17:45:13 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, for posting the Anonymous letter a number of posts back. Realizing it is only one out of hundreds of anonymous letters to investigators of the case, this one still intrigued me, and not only because it attempts to implicate Anna Hauptmann. I do believe Anna came to know of Richard's involvement before he was apprehended, but that she probably had no idea prior to the kidnapping.
The reason I've read this one over and over is because it seems to me it's written in the style of another well known case letter, the "JJ Faulkner" letter to Governor Hoffman. Dated Jan. 1936. Although it's a bit of a challenge to follow the thread of this person's argument at times, here are some personal impressions around that and the style of communication.
Right away, the writer asks JEH if he received his previous letter. He starts off, “Dear Sir, Did you receive my letter of October 1?” which is reminiscent of the second ransom note after the nursery note.. “Did you receive ouer letter of March 4?” Perhaps a fairly common opening line, but interesting the same. I would love to see that Oct. 1 letter because the writer has apparently divulged "certain facts" in it relating to who was complicit, ie. a "gang of a half dozen or more."
Michael, was this October 1 letter included in the December 26, 1934 Anonymous letter as an attachment? Have you ever seen it within the FBI Files? This reference to a gang would seem to align with my own belief that there were more original participants in the kidnapping from a conceptual standpoint all the way to the collection and laundering of ransom money, but that others dropped out along the way leaving Hauptmann to assume the position of chief stakeholder. Basically, he couldn't rat out anyone else, no matter how slight their involvement, without first implicating himself. I'm thinking this may be someone who in some way provided some motivation or level of detail that was then utilized by others and that this person is aware of the way things unfolded. And I'm specifically thinking of a guy like Nosovitsky here, not only for this reason but also that he knew JEH personally.
The writer also claims to know that Hauptmann, Anna and Katy Fredericksen (sic Christiansen) committed perjury at the Bronx County Extradition Hearings, when they testified that Anna Hauptmann worked at the restaurant on the evening of the kidnapping. I guess this is all part and parcel of the detail enclosed in the October 1 letter.
To summarize for now and I'll post more this week, this a reasonably formal and well written communication, but I find there is something quite personal about the tone, which tells me the writer may know the person he is addressing, but doesn't want to give away his identity for the time being.
My apologies as this was hastily written but it's an avenue I'll be focusing on this coming week and I have a stack of information to take away with me for the work week out of town.
At the same time, I'm very interested in others' thoughts and if they happen to see any similarities within the above two letters letters.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2017 1:47:19 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 13, 2017 1:47:19 GMT -5
It seems since physical evidence was left at the crime scene, there was only one perpetrator, and he couldn't carry everything. If there was more than one kidnapper and part of the extras job was to clean-up the area, he just took the night off, leaving behind major clues which helped convict BRH (not catch, but convict.)
I've seen that letter from Faulkner to Hoffman but can't say where it is at the moment. The context about it was that it was a hoax of a hoax, and I remember chatting w/Michael about it at the time. I'm sure he has it somewhere.
One important thing about that letter was that there was no new information in it which you'd think the writer would include if he was really involved in the Lindbergh Crime.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2017 5:48:59 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2017 5:48:59 GMT -5
It seems since physical evidence was left at the crime scene, there was only one perpetrator, and he couldn't carry everything. If there was more than one kidnapper and part of the extras job was to clean-up the area, he just took the night off, leaving behind major clues which helped convict BRH (not catch, but convict.) Without re-writing the book here, there were (3) sets of footprints. None of them matched Hauptmann's. If one set was Anne's then there's two sets that weren't his. Richard's book attempts to get around this but I've disproven those theories. Someone wiped down the nursery. If the Kidnappers wore gloves there would be no need, and if they didn't then why wasn't Hauptmann's prints found on that ladder? Etc. etc. etc. The catch-all "lone-wolf" theory doesn't work and any argument to show it does has been neutralized by the facts. I've seen that letter from Faulkner to Hoffman but can't say where it is at the moment. The context about it was that it was a hoax of a hoax, and I remember chatting w/Michael about it at the time. I'm sure he has it somewhere. One important thing about that letter was that there was no new information in it which you'd think the writer would include if he was really involved in the Lindbergh Crime. The letters are posted in these threads (to Hoffman And to Dr. Hudson from "J. J. Faulkner"): lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/1017/faulkner-letterlindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/102/jj-nosovitsky?page=5***To Amy, Joe, and Hurt: When I get a chance I will search a little to see if I can add to this conversation. There might be something I have to shed some light on it.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2017 9:25:27 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 13, 2017 9:25:27 GMT -5
amy I feel he did it alone. theres no real proof anybody helped him just speculation. if you were part of the plot would you trust somebody meeting condon in a cemetery where you can be caught? even if the babys is already dead? if somebody in the house was involved they would have had to know hauptmann which theres no proof that anybody did. mike will get sick of hitting a brick wall.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 6:26:47 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2017 6:26:47 GMT -5
Michael, where is the letter to Dr. Hudson from "JJ Faulkner?" I see a letter in the JJ Nosovitsky thread from July 14, 2014 but it's signed "Jhon." I wasn't aware of such a letter. Is it somewhere else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 8:27:05 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 8:27:05 GMT -5
amy I feel he did it alone. theres no real proof anybody helped him just speculation. if you were part of the plot would you trust somebody meeting condon in a cemetery where you can be caught? even if the babys is already dead? if somebody in the house was involved they would have had to know hauptmann which theres no proof that anybody did. mike will get sick of hitting a brick wall. Hey Steve, You are truly THE standard bearer for the Lone Wolf position. I always follow your posts and all the time I have been posting here and reading the thousands and thousands of posts on this board, you have NEVER moved even a millimeter from that position. This is not a criticism, Steve. I don't know how you do it. Once I learned there were two sets of footprints going away from the nursery window, I could no longer embrace that only one man committed this crime. If I were part of the plot to kidnap Charlie, I would have picked someone like Condon as my middleman. Everything he did helped the kidnappers to get the money and all the misdirection he caused for over two years actually worked against the apprehension of anyone. I think the way this crime was arranged it was done so no direct link to any inside help could be made.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 14:04:45 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 14, 2017 14:04:45 GMT -5
Those two footprints near the house you're talking about, one was a socked foot (you can see the toes,) and the other was a normal man's shoe, like a reporter or anybody would have on. The deep impression near the ladder holes in the dirt was from the socked impression.
The footprints going away from the ladder believed by some to be two kidnappers, both had galoshes or overshoes on. That would mean that to leave, kidnapper #1 put his boots on over the socks and #2 put outside footwear on over his shoes. Why would #2 take his overshoes off to go near the house? And for #!, if he was just having Charlie passed to him while he's on the ladder, why would he take his shoes off?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 14:53:19 GMT -5
Post by john on Mar 14, 2017 14:53:19 GMT -5
One quick thought FWIW re Anna's testimony that her husband picked her up on the night of March 1, 1932: Anna clearly loved her husband, as she worked for decades to try to have his case reopened. I have to assume that she felt the same when BRH was alive, thus it's a distinct possibility but not a sure thing that Anna's memory would play tricks on her. In other words, given the time gap between 1932 and '34 it would be difficult for anyone to remember what happened on a particular night. Unless it was a case of BRH ALWAYS picking Anna up at Fredericksen's and this being common knowledge, with BRH known for being the sort of man you could set your watch by (etc.) I suspect that Anna BELIEVED that her husband picked her up due to her love and respect for him. In addition, I think it's worth mentioning that in those pre-women's lib days women were far more likely to trust and often literally put faith in their husbands, thus Anna's loyalty to husband would be a given.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 15:14:30 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 14, 2017 15:14:30 GMT -5
It's too bad they didn't indict Anna too because she might have talked. She was pretty gabby and a liar.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 15:33:20 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2017 15:33:20 GMT -5
Those two footprints near the house you're talking about, one was a socked foot (you can see the toes,) and the other was a normal man's shoe, like a reporter or anybody would have on. The deep impression near the ladder holes in the dirt was from the socked impression. The footprints going away from the ladder believed by some to be two kidnappers, both had galoshes or overshoes on. That would mean that to leave, kidnapper #1 put his boots on over the socks and #2 put outside footwear on over his shoes. Why would #2 take his overshoes off to go near the house? And for #!, if he was just having Charlie passed to him while he's on the ladder, why would he take his shoes off? I tried to give all of the different versions about the prints as possible. They all record (except the trial testimony) that (2) sets of prints left in the direction of the ladder, and (1) set toward the back veranda. Unless someone walked backwards then there's two people responsible for the prints leading to the ladder from the direction of the house. Schwazkopf said they were "apparently mens" but that's debatable when considering other's say one set near the ladder was a female. That's two people no matter what. Next, if those other prints were not Anne's then there's three. No Reporters made them because none were there before these prints were observed. These are the basic facts. Now as to "why" someone would do anything after that does not invalidate the fact those prints existed.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 16:32:18 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2017 16:32:18 GMT -5
Katie Fredericksen told DA Foley she kept books. See Gardner, The Case That Never Dies, page 179. So what do you suppose happened to those books? Here is the relevant page from that questioning: Nothing in the Bronx Hearing Transcripts and Wilentz didn't even bother to cross examine her.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 16:36:40 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2017 16:36:40 GMT -5
I didn't realize the two sets of footprints forked into what was basically two different directions. Where did the footprints that went toward the back veranda end? What was over there, in that direction? Was it something like this? (Orange is the driveway, blue is tire tracks, green dot is where the ladder was found, yellow is footprints/access roads). That picture is incorrect. The set Anne made claim to followed the Boardwalk to the back of the house ending at the back. The other two walked through the yard leading to where the ladder was found. Then from the ladder onto the access road (east) toward Wertsville Road ending there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2017 16:55:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:55:39 GMT -5
Nothing in the Bronx Hearing Transcripts and Wilentz didn't even bother to cross examine her. Thanks, Michael for posting that page. It does confirm that Katie had records and that she also used checks. Wilentz did cross-examine both Mr. and Mrs. Fredericksen in Flemington. He clearly wanted to influence the jury's thinking concerning Anna's presence at the bakery that night. If he didn't think it mattered, why would he have bothered?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 15, 2017 9:58:34 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 15, 2017 9:58:34 GMT -5
I don't think anna was involved, as far as her a liar she didn't lie on the stand when wilentz asked her if she saw a shoebox on the topshelf she said no. in her own words in a old documentary she said reilly wanted her to lie about that
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 15, 2017 10:14:13 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 15, 2017 10:14:13 GMT -5
well amy I never saw real proof that anyone else was involved. to many people dilly dally and go in circles researching this case. I climbed a replica ladder same weight and measurements at the very spot its very doable. it was possible that one man could have done the whole ball of wax. one thing I did learn is the ladder when first built split at the very spot like the original. keraga thinks it was a design flaw putting the dowel hole close to the end instead of to much weight coming down like a lot of authors claim.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 15, 2017 22:29:27 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 15, 2017 22:29:27 GMT -5
Anna said:
"Stealing a loaf of bread - that was the crime my Richard had in Germany."
|
|