mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 10, 2012 16:03:06 GMT -5
Hi Kevkon, Re: Anna What "enrichment" do you have in mind? As to the ups and downs of stock market do you think she would have known doodly about that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2012 16:18:46 GMT -5
I am going to disagree. Please don't take what I say and assume its what I think happened.... but I believe if the Mob was involved then why take out your fall-guy? That would then implicate more people. Next, exactly when do you take him out? After he's arrested or before? What do you suppose he would have to know in order to get clipped and what wouldn't he in order to stay alive?
What I think shows real Mobsters aren't at work is the employment of Condon. I don't see them using him because he's too public, and too colorful a figure. In hind-sight he did a great job his only failure being he gave Hauptmann up in the end. Had he gone down with the ship he would have been perfect, however, that's not how the Mob operated back then (it wasn't until the 80s they started seeking attention in that way).
However, when you consider that Madden, Bitz, Spitale, and others who were brought in, accused, or utilized in some way, form, or fashion - then it has to be accepted they were involved indirectly.
Someone wanted the finger pointed at them.
The other thing is that Hauptmann could have saved his life AND made some loot with a confession. So why didn't he? Well everyone points to that as if it proves he worked alone. But everyone seems to forget that he did blame Fisch. So he is TELLING on someone, and that cannot be ignored. After that he starts to suggest that Condon was involved. He tells Leibowitz how he'd commit the crime if he had actually been involved.
In other words, there is a lot in what he does say which seems to be overlooked.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2012 7:39:57 GMT -5
You just don't let your "fall guy" walk around for 2 1/2 years. The whole point is to take the heat away, to misdirect LE. That's not what happened. Hauptmann is a nobody and he is not vested, the obvious choice would be to eliminate him ( with incriminating evidence) early on, case closed. That's how it always is done.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2012 7:43:43 GMT -5
What I mean Mairi, is that the Hauptmann's life dramatically changed for the better. We know that Anna was involved in some of the finances. Did she not wonder how her husband suddenly stoppped working as $100 a month carpenter and became a suit and tie stockbroker?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 8:52:56 GMT -5
And regardless of who he might have been working for, whether it be organized crime, or anyone else in a trail that directly back to Lindbergh, Hauptmann would have been dispatched without question before LE caught up with him. After all, we're talking first degree murder of the child of the most famous man on the planet. Just what would Hauptmann have then represented in that equation to those in power, other than an extremely high liability, but extremely attractive target?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 10:24:12 GMT -5
I find it very difficult to believe Anna knew nothing about the true source of their enrichment. From the time Hauptmann began investing in stocks following the market crash of 1929, she had the opportunity to establish in her mind, even a base understanding of the kind of profits her husband was able to reap from a market that seemed to many, to have no where to go but up. And that over the following two and a half years, any dreams of huge profits were short lived as the market continued to plunge to an all time low. Anna was a practical, hardworking and down-to-earth woman. And she wasn't stupid, or lacking of of any the qualities that motivate an individual to take public action, as the world would see following her husband's arrest. At what point would Richard's sudden windfalls in the midst of the Great Depression, have tweaked her curiousity enough to suspect her husband was not being honest with her?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2012 10:38:32 GMT -5
I think if the idea is for no one to get caught then there is no need to do such a thing. If the heat is on the "Mob" and its leading no where then why take out a guy, in Mob fashion, if the idea is to lead away from that target?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I also don't agree that's how its always done. If someone is brought in there is a trust factor. If he's brought in to die then he's already dead - just as Condon said John was having been killed by his Confederates. There's plenty of people who went to prison for a very long time because they kept their mouths shut. And so if what you suggest is always the case they would never have such an opportunity.
It's why, in my opinion, Condon wasn't given his pink slip. Condon broke weak as it concerned Hauptmann but showed no signs of doing so anywhere else. Hauptmann was named and was trusted not to squeal. So killing Condon would have drawn more attention to the fact more people were involved. "Mob" or no Mob.
Hauptmann dies and its over. Kill Condon - and its not.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2012 10:58:35 GMT -5
Now I'm confused, I thought you were making Hauptmann a "fall guy". What's the point of that if he keeps walking around and the investigation continues? What if Lyle had not recorded that note? What if BRH went to Germany?
Sure, I know some criminals don't talk, but how many facing the chair don't? Unless the mob you are referring to was German, Hauptmann would never be trusted. That's a two way street.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 11, 2012 11:07:38 GMT -5
This is off the top of my head, but it’s my understanding that Hauptmann continued to do sporadic carpentry work, which was more seasonal than usual due to the Depression. Also, Anna was still working steadily at the bakery. I have always considered the fact that they took a three-month cross-country trip in 1931 as strong evidence that the Hauptmanns were not facing financial hard times before the kidnapping. Neither one of them worked during that stretch. So to me, buying (for example) the expensive radio wouldn’t have shocked Anna any more than the cross-country trip.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 11:23:33 GMT -5
I'm wondering just what the reaction by those in power would be for the fall guy to not only extort money he wasn't supposed to from his employers, but spend that money openly on personal luxury items while living at a published address. And how long it would take for that warm sense of "trust among thieves" to go stone cold. For my money, Hauptmann came within a hair's breadth of unravelling the script and confessing to his true involvement on Oct. 3, 1934 with then-lawyer James Fawcett, but that's worthy of another thread by itself. He could have saved us all a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2012 12:09:33 GMT -5
That's why I asked at what point he would have been killed. After his arrest he is the "fall guy." I certainly didn't mean to suggest his role was to be caught so that he could take total blame. I truly believe no one expected there would be an arrest. Afterall, its my position that it was Condon's role to ensure that didn't happen and he was doing a damn good job of it.
Although I do see indirect involvement of various Mobsters, and there certainly could have been in places we don't suspect, I think their hands were clean of any planning concerning this event. Of course that's just my opinion.
Not sure about this one either. Consider his family was out there unprotected, and the possibility someone close to him was involved as well.
That's exactly right.
Let's say there is this plan, a course of action which is followed. Then something happens and the plan is deviated from. What could that have been?
I've pursued this line for some time now Joe. I think, more then once, the possibility was there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 13:16:57 GMT -5
Are you sure about that? A high end Stromberg-Carlson radio and phonograph that set them back almost what Richard and Anna's entire share for the trip represented? Their three month excursion could hardly have been called a luxury vacation, with Hauptmann watching each and every penny meticulously along the way in his memo books. No mention of the radio or any of the other luxury expenses that he bought after March 1932 though.
Both Hauptmann and Hans Kloppenburg took their carpentry tools with them in the event they found part time or regular employment along the way. True, they may not have been starving, but their frugality must have been stepped up a few notches as Hauptmann's stocks had been hammered silly by the time they arrived home, and this trend continued well into 1932.
I've always found the coinciding of the time of the bottoming of the stock market with the kidnapping to be a very interesting one.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 13:24:02 GMT -5
Michael, I'm all ears as to what you think happened but the only plan I see here is the one Hauptmann participated in, and that he personally messed up through his own greed and desperation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2012 13:48:20 GMT -5
Let me get this straight. You have Hauptmann passing recorded serial # gold certificates in one area and you don't believe he would have been caught?? He was a ticking bomb in the Bronx. If there was any gang at work, Hauptmann's life would have been a couple of tears shorter. There's just no reason to risk having him around. There are several good reasons to eliminate him.
As for him fearing for his family, there's proof that he didn't.
To some degree it's apples and oranges. The 31 trip as Joe said was done on the cheap and the Hauptmann's finances were slim. The post kidnap expenditures were not done on the cheap (no sales or bargains) and the Hauptmann finances were much better.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2012 16:18:20 GMT -5
What I believe isn't the point concerning what I posted - I believe they thought no one would be arrested. After Hauptmann's arrest someone was passing notes and they weren't arrested. Did that person believe they were going to be? Prior to Hauptmann no one had been and here he gets it and still someone else is.
I'm not sure what you consider a gang but there's an abundance of proof that multiple people are involved. I believe Condon would have been dead immediately after the ransom was delivered if those involved were going to kill someone. That's not to say someone hadn't been already since it was Condon who said John was, and its been his M.O. to either use real facts to bolster what he says or complete lies so that he can distance himself from other things. To say "John" is dead could be absolutely true, and on the other hand, could have the effect of the fleshy lump on his thumb - that is where he could deny anyone as being John based upon it.
If you read the Stockburger Reports you can see where Hauptmann is confident in Condon then, after he realizes he's been betrayed, starts saying things like Condon "holds the key to his cell" etc. Again there's a "trust" element involved. Even being in jail his obvious belief and trust was in Condon. So they, as an example, wouldn't kill him because they had no reason to - quite the contrary.
I don't see any. The Prosecutions entire charge was based upon him being alone. They needed him alive to take the fall once that develops. Prior to that why would they need him dead? One could make a case for all, even the unknown, to be needed dead simply because they had been involved. These people didn't talk. Condon did everything he could not to rat out Hauptmann and Hauptmann only threw Fisch under the bus. It's the perfect scenario if you are involved and haven't been implicated.
Once Hauptmann gets the chair you're clean as a whistle. You certainly don't want to drag Condon back into it by either killing him or exacting revenge on him for his betrayal.
Again I have to disagree.
He buys a new car. He quit his job to take that trip. He gave up his apartment, put his belongings in storage (at a cost) then upon his return rented an even more expensive place then his last.
It's completely irrational if he's broke or on borrowed time because his finances are slim. So he buys this car here, and that radio later. It's like he has a duel personality when it comes to money. He's frugal "here" but spends "there" both before and after the crime.
I am not saying he wasn't involved, however, we can't assign him a particular behavior due to the ransom when there's evidence he was like that before hand.
Look at his apartment. He disliked his Landlord and his Landlord didn't like him. Leaky roof, hot water issues, holding back rent - AFTER the ransom payment! Why wouldn't he just move to a better place?
Heck, he had no problem doing that when he was supposedly BROKE. See my point?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 11, 2012 19:05:19 GMT -5
Over 70% of the ransom payment was composed of gold certificates which would become highly visible, within the kidnapper's environment, and they (whoever that is) thought no one would be arrested?
Regarding the passing of ransom money after Hauptmann's arrest. Who passed the money and did they know what it was? How does one determine precisely whether or not these bills were simply in circulation at the time?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2012 8:10:29 GMT -5
Michael, I think you are making some enormous assumptions here. How in earth would anyone know how the prosecution would develop prior to the fact? How could anyone know how Hauptmann would hold up under interrogation?. Why are you assuming that there was a participant at large based on more money showing up after the arrest?
As for Hauptmann's trip in 31, believe it or not, people often do things that are irrational and short sighted. You see the results at work.
I know this, if there is some group behind the kidnap, they sure as hell know Hauptmann is a walking liability that is unnecessary.
Here we agree. It's not just regarding the money, either. I think there is a term for this type of personality.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 12, 2012 9:12:48 GMT -5
i think BRH's actions regarding almost all his actions indicate a controlling personality. he controlled the family finances, period. i do NOT think that is so strange given that era. so if hubby says they are going on vacation, they go. if he says he had a windfall in the stock market, ok that's great. saying this does not mean i think Anna was stupid. again, one must compare the environments these people grew up in & the social mores that were prevalent.
is it also possible that regardless of the size of the 'gang', that they immediately went their separate ways (in movies they would vow never to speak of this again etc.) but BRH just started spending his money sooner than the others? given that LE stopped really running down the spending of the ransom after he was caught.
also, at his trial i think the prosecution had to make a case for BRH alone as to allow even the possibility of conspirators might lead to reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2012 10:08:39 GMT -5
I'd call it living below the radar but very comfortably. The Hauptmanns' furniture and accessories as well as their clothing and aspects of their lifestyle, were all befitting of plusher surroundings following the kidnapping. Now, if a history of minor and major deficiencies had been noted, as it appears to have been from the time they moved in five months before the kidnapping and continued beyond that, would it not be understandable to complain regularly to the landlord or even hold back the rent until they were corrected, regardless of their financial situation? As for their 222nd Street address, we'll never know if they were actually planning on staying, as a return to Germany, when the statute of limitations had expired for Richard, seemed a very likely option. On the other hand, with all those pesky gold certificates in his garage, his stock market dreams crumbling and his wife all over him for his philandering ways, I'd say he couldn't have scripted the prelude to a more fitting final act if he had tried.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2012 10:31:38 GMT -5
Ok, so Anna just assumed her husband's sudden job change was nothing unusual. Kinda like "never look a gift horse in the mouth". Who stopped Richard from investing in silver?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 12, 2012 10:35:01 GMT -5
joe, hauptmann luied to his wife about his earnings, like he did to his ex coworkers. remember they interviewed the guy named grizzle? he told him he was making his money in the stock market thats why he wasnt working
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2012 10:39:02 GMT -5
This is one area where I believe no one can argue that Anna didn't have a clue. They are now parents and there would certainly be discussions about their future beyond 222st. Unfortunately, we will never know what those plans were and when it was supposed to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2012 11:38:13 GMT -5
I think I am somehow confusing you here. I never meant to imply they knew this ahead of time.
I believe whoever was involved was probably selected for this purpose. You never absolutely know, but if someone is brought on board for just this reason then the odds are better then if they hadn't be vetted in this way. We know from Hauptmann's Germany arrests he wasn't a snitch. Hindsight being 20/20 as it is - I'd want him on my team if I were going to pull something like this off.
Maybe so but I don't believe this is the case here because it fits a pattern. Not only that, this trip was a planned event which took several acts of specific behavior we would have to deem "irrational" if he were broke.
The new car. Quitting his job. Storage fees. Renting a more expensive place.
Then comes the ransom so we point to the Radio and say "A-HA!" Wait a minute. He's in a battle with his Landlord in a place that BOTH he and his Wife are unhappy living in. But he doesn't move and stays where he's at despite the 50 Large he has? "A-HA!" Well, no, that doesn't make any sense does it?
What is this indicative of? A crazy man? I don't think so. If not then what? Think about it.
Actually we don't. I was just being facetious to exemplify my point. ;D
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2012 13:26:12 GMT -5
Ok, I'm glad you bring up the term "pattern". Another way of saying it is signature. I know you believe that Hauptmann was enriched prior to 1932. I believe you see this as a "pre-payment" for the LKC. I see two problems with that. First, we have no clue as to what Hauptmann had been up to ( in the criminal sense) prior to the LKC. For all we know, he may very well have participated in another crime and scored some money. Second , and more importantly, we can see how Hauptmann deals with the money we know he had from the LKC. He is stingy in some ways ( such as Anna's household money, Rausch, etc) and a spendthrift ( the radio, guns,, etc) on others. It all depends on how he views the expenditure. What he does do consistently though, is keep track of his expenses and worth without any direct reference to the ransom money. Now when you look at the Hauptmann finances in 1930 & 1931 you see an entirely different situation than that of 1932-1934. Had he been "enriched" before the crime I would expect to see the same pattern as after the crime, but it's not. Now maybe as I said, Hauptmann might have had some unexplained income in 1931, but it was no where near the amount he was to gain in 1932. His own books reveal this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2012 19:41:17 GMT -5
I think we are saying the same thing but looking at it differently. I see it as a reaction to a certain set of circumstances. While I think you are focusing on his internal tendencies, I am focusing on the external factors. Obviously both need to be looked at.
Are you calling them "problems" because you do not see that as a possibility or simply that there are more than just one option to consider?
Certainly. I would also say this possibility applies after the kidnapping as well.
I understand why you think this, but I believe you are looking past other reasons to get to this one.
As well as his partnership with Fisch.
Maybe, and I would assume so. But we don't have the documentation to prove this.
I see a pattern between both trips. I see him buying the car he always wanted just like he bought that radio. I see him taking the trip he always wanted to take, and taking that trip to Florida too. I see him being "thrifty" on both trips. I see him quitting his jobs.
Is it exactly alike? Damn near. Now perhaps before this cross country trip he bought no big ticket items. Didn't dare quit his job, etc. This is simply making my point stronger.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 12, 2012 22:20:14 GMT -5
For Kevkon: I saw an interesting show about the Green River Killer (Washington State) who admitted to 48 murders (probably in actuality about twice that) but could have been many higher. Talk was with his wife and she said that until he pled guilty she still had no inclination of him as a murderer. He lived a normal life, albeit somewhat downplayed terror since he was married, but she said that on looking back her only clue would have been his rising early and "going to work." She thought that's when he got the victims. If that alone could put you in jail half the successful men in the country, including myself, would be behind bars. She said, and she is terribly nice, that Gary Ridgway was a wonderful man. As far as I know Ridgway is still alive in Walla Walla. I know a couple guys there and can check if anyone's interested. The clueless Mrs. Gary Ridgway show was probably the saddest thing I've seen on TV. Hey Kev I've got a pristene copy of "What We Saw" with a still sealed DVD - will let you have it cheap (would like it to go to a collector) but I want to watch that show so I've got another one coming. Those are going as high as $150 on eBay - you can make an offer and as usual I'll be nice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2012 10:18:19 GMT -5
Jack, I assume that would be his third wife. I doubt the other two would say the same. However, a serial killer is a lot different than a kidnapper. Also, I am more than willling to accept that Anna knew nothing of the kidnapping. It's everything else that I doubt.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 10:31:56 GMT -5
Third wife is correct. One was dead I think and the other refused to comment. Current wife also said that when she moved in with Gary there was no carpet in the living room and police speculated that he rolled a body up in it to dispose of. Carpet/body associated with it was never found so probably 49 and adding. I can see Anna believing Richard was just a nice guy - he probably thought that of himself. There is as much evidence that Richard was just a coincidential participant as there is that he did the complete crime alone. Just for one incidence - this entire site seems to almost rule out Fisch. If he is factored in it's a new ball game.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2012 10:38:23 GMT -5
It doesn't matter, all of our actions are reflective of who we are. We are all unique so our responses reflect that. Hauptmann is no different.
I call them problems because you can get into trouble by drawing conclusions from them.
Sure
I guess that's correct. Primarily because I don't see proof of any other reasons. Once again, I don't like to draw conclusions without real evidence. Do you have some?
From which one might conclude that Fisch was not in on the kidnapping.
Do you have documentation to prove Hauptmann had received kidnap related money prior to 32? The more important point is that Hauptmann didn't have that much to record ( or obfuscate). That is a good indication that he was low on funds and could not wheel and deal on the market as much as when he received the ransom money.
Of course you see a pattern, it's the same guy. This is Hauptmann with or without being flush with money. He does the same thing with the kidnapping as well. I don't see how Hauptmann not being able to quit his job or purchase any discretionary items prior to the 31 trip strengthens your case. I'm sure if he had 50k at his disposal in 31 you would see him do the very same he did in 32,33, &34.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 10:46:13 GMT -5
Anne also said, "it was an accident" to a news reporter and that's another statement which this site just disregards. Because this crime remains a mystery after nearly a hundred years it would seem that the problems we have been poking at are the wrong problems.
|
|