Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 12:15:33 GMT -5
Ditto on the tense atmosphere that must have dominated the Hauptmann household for two months. I have often wondered if Anna ever suspected anything about her husband being involved. Did she just attribute the tension to being caused by monetary pressures because of the lack of a steady income on BRH's part? That would be understandable.
The sudden change in their finances after April 2 is another matter. She said that she believed her husband when he said that the change in their financial situation was due to his success with his investments in the stock market. I can see her believing this because she would not want to even consider that the money came from any other source. It was safer to just believe whatever he said. And she did until the day she died.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 12:29:18 GMT -5
What proves to me that Anna would believe anything BRH said is that when the ransom money was found in their garage, she believed what Hauptmann said about why he had the money. She believed what he said about Fisch giving him the box with the money in it. She admits she never saw Fisch bring in the box or that she ever saw the box on the shelf in the closet but if Richard said that was how the money came to be in his possession, then that was as good as gospel to her. Nothing would ever make her believe different. It would have to come from the lips of Richard only. She would believe and stand by her man no matter what. It is like Joe said in his post. They would defend each other to the end.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 16:43:05 GMT -5
There is a big difference between actually believing something and just accepting something, though.
I just think the day to day actions are interesting regardless of whether they prove something or not. I can only imagine what was going on in between Richard and Anna during March and April 1932.
By the same token, I wonder what the brokers at Carleton & Mott and Steiner Rouse were thinking about BRH after April. Michael, how did the investigators handle the brokerages? Did they interview everyone who dealt with Hauptmann? I don't think I have ever seen anything substantial on the brokers.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 20, 2012 17:25:44 GMT -5
Looking over recent posts on this thread about Anna Hauptmann, a few comments. The first thing Anna asked BRH when she saw he was arrested, was, had HE done anything wrong? Not the question of a woman whose devotion is blind. When Reilly asked her to lie about seeing the shoe box in the closet, she refused to do so, even though it would have helped Hauptmann. This demonstrates that she valued truth above devotion. Before they got married, Richard came clean with her about his arrest record in Germany. Not the action of a guy who’s trying to hide his dark side from his wife. The argument between Anna and Hans, during the 1931 trip, over some postcards, sounds as relevant to the LKC as what flavor of cereal Manfred liked for breakfast. Hans continued to come for the musical get-togethers on Saturday nights, he was at Fisch’s going-away party, and it was Anna who gave Scaduto Han’s address forty years later, so they presumably kept in touch. People sometimes get on each other’s nerves on long trips; I see nothing relevant in them having a tiff. I believe there was a comment in the thread about Anna avoiding Hunter’s Island; can’t find it right now. Anyway, Anna stated, both in court and interviews, that she used to go there. However, because she worked at the bakery every other Sunday, she couldn’t always go. Again, no big deal here. Maybe Hauptmann got too friendly with Gerta, but here’s a photo of Gerta supporting Anna after Richard’s execution, so I don’t read any hatred for Gerta in that: www.apimages.com/OneUp.aspx?st=k&kw=%22anna%20hauptmann%22&showact=results&sort=relevance&intv=None&sh=10237&kwstyle=or&adte=1345499346&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&rids=846565bff4e74fbfbac5f5ae2346719d&dbm=PY2000&page=1&xslt=1&mediatype=PhotoAnna fought this case into her nineties, and she fought it in court. She was no ditz; she was lucid and was very familiar with the facts of the case. And if she was alive today, I think she’d make toast out of some of the things said on this board.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 20, 2012 19:53:53 GMT -5
BR, Good post. My impressions are very similar to your viewpoint -Anna/BRH. I see Anna as a very honorable person, throughout. That was also a good photo site you provided. I hadn't seen that before.
Re finances: Kennedy's book says that when they went on trip to CA they left $4,000 with Anna's uncle for safe keeping. And some gold coins. Also that BRH continued to have independent carpentry jobs.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 20:09:09 GMT -5
I can't agree in the least. This is one reason, perhaps the single greatest reason why no one gets any further. That trip and what occurred may be more important than any other subject. And everything relating to Anna is germain, regardless of her culpability. Osf course if you would rather debate the condition of Charlie's skull, be my guest.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 20, 2012 21:28:31 GMT -5
BR, I'll agree with you that Anna was lucid and no ditz, and that she appeared to maintain those traits until old age. At the same time, do you not then find it somewhat unusual that this obviously intelligent and discerning woman, would for the rest of her life, refuse to accept or even consider one iota of some of the most visibly demonstrative circumstantial evidence against her husband, in much the same way he himself so stoically maintained until his own death? And how is this explained outside some kind of mutual alignment?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 20, 2012 22:01:25 GMT -5
Hi, Joe. There has been some nifty work recently on Rail 16, but I don’t think that was available to Anna in her lifetime. And of course there was the money in the garage—but she found Richard’s Fisch explanation credible (and so do I). Other than the rail and the money in the garage, what evidence do you think she was ignoring?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2012 8:46:24 GMT -5
BR, Rail 16 and the garage money are two very significant pieces of evidence, which I'm sure an unaware Anna would have deliberated on long and hard. Other clues, perhaps even more meaningful to her, would have to have included the ransom note handwriting examples featured in the newspapers, Richard's mood and behaviour, and activities up to and including the ransom negotiations and his inability to conclusively account for his whereabouts on the night of March 1. Although Anna claimed Richard was with her and they drove home together at the regular time, she could not afix any other details of that evening and neither of the Fredericksen's would swear to their claim on the witness stand.
Then there is Richard's sudden and relatively carefree spending habits. This is a woman from the German countryside, who together with her husband had saved for many years prior, basically forsaking all luxury items, when she found herself showing her friend twenty new evening dresses while listening to her husband matter-of-factly telling her he'd better give her $1000 of spending money for her upcoming trip to Germany. During this time, it would be a stretch to believe Anna was blissfully unaware of the nosediving stock market and it's collateral effects on the lives of their friends, family and neighbours, which her husband claimed was the key to their new found wealth.
I believe that Anna, within her relationship with Richard over the years, found herself increasingly part of a world that had her deep and traditional values, principles of moral investment and return, as well as plain common sense continually challenged by Richard's risk taking and subtle negative elements of his basic greed and criminal past rising. And that at some point, most probably within the two and half year period between the kidnapping and her husband's capture, she committed herself to him and all his misgivings totally. Of course, all of this would mean nothing to a woman who is truly blissfully unaware of the things around her but I don't think Anna was one of those women.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2012 9:15:10 GMT -5
When did she find this credible? Was it before or after she benefitted from the ransom money?
Let's take a look at the pantry. You know the top shelf that Anna never ever looked at despite using the pantry every day. Richard claims the reason he re-discovered the magic shoe box was because of a water leak. Do any of you really suppose that Richard would be the first one to notice a presence of water in the Pantry? It seems that Anna has been granted some type of duality which allows her to be the highly efficient housefrau who is very observant and active with the finances, while at the same time she is clueless about everything relating to the crime and the ransom.
BR, you might want to look at Rab's analysis of the Hauptmann's ( note plural) finances and particularly the order of the ransom note spending with regard to the Fisch story. It's on this site in the archives section.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2012 10:17:54 GMT -5
Considering the top shelf of Anna's pantry was a location that had continually collected water from a roof leak over the years, it's a mystery to me how a waterlogged box of money sitting there for about nine months until August of 1934, would not have attracted some attention due to it's very odour, never mind an increasingly dishevelled appearance. Then of course, there is Richard's fortuitous and physics-defying jab with the butt end of the broomstick which somehow managed to rip into the side of the hitherto unseen shoebox. I can't imagine how Anna would have processed all of this and come out smiling.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2012 11:16:35 GMT -5
Ach du lieber!
Seriously, I can't help but to wonder how everyone in the world seems to be considered suspect except the wife of the one man convicted. Is it not reasonable to at least consider her suspect? I always hear the argument that had the crime occurred today Lindbergh would be immediately considered suspect. That is a proper action. But guess what, having a married man as the prime and only suspect would also get his wife in the cross hairs just as quickly.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 21, 2012 11:19:34 GMT -5
Well, I know Wilentz shelled out $33,000 (more than the entire defense budget), for handwriting experts to say BRH wrote the ransom notes, but I’ve seen several handwriting experts—both during and after the trial—who denied it was Hauptmann’s writing. I don’t think the handwriting claims would have bugged Anna at all, especially in the context of all of Wilentz’s other underhanded tactics, which she was quite aware of.
As far as mood and behavior, what mood and behavior changes in Hauptmann have been recorded that Anna should have noticed?
Regarding his wherebouts the night of the kidnapping, it’s normally tough to visualize, with detail and certainty, what you were doing on a specific night two and a half years earlier, but Anna undoubtedly was encouraged by the testimonies of Carlstrom and Kiss, both of whom distinctly remembered the dog argument (and who, unlike Whithed and Hochmuth, were not motivated by reward money).
Do you know what the reference is on that, Joe? I haven’t heard it before. Anna never struck me as worldly or a show-off. Would they even have even had that kind of closet space in their house?
Kevin, I have stuff stored on high shelves in closets in my house, shelves that I haven’t examined in years. I think there’s nothing unusual about Anna, who was short, not looking at the back of the top shelf. Why would she lie about that, when she wouldn’t lie for Reilly and say she saw the shoe box? Both Anna and Richard complained about the leak to the landlord several times before the plumber came to fix it.
Well, those look like good observations by Rab. Sorting out BRH’s finances is obviously a complicated affair. Just off the top of my head--As far as the order of ransom notes being passed (going back to 1933), I’m not sure why one has to conclude that it was Hauptmann, rather than someone else, peeling off those notes in sequence in late 1933. And regarding enrichment—we made the same point in the Knoll discussion—people sometimes come into money through various means, and it doesn’t have to be through kidnap money. For example, Gardner mentions (p. 323) that Hauptmann purchased a mortgage for $3,750 in 1933, and “police learned from the bank that none of the mortgage purchase money had been gold certificates.” On the other hand, let’s not forget that Fisch bought his steamship tickets from Steinwig WITH gold certs.
But I have to admit, it would take time (much more than I’ve got) to try to thoroughly analyze Hauptmann’s finances.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2012 11:36:05 GMT -5
They are partners. Do you think the actions required by the kidnapping, ransom negotiations, manhunt, and payoff would not effect the mood of her husband? This is not a typical closet, it's a shallow pantry closet which Anna is the primary user. Do you really believe that she would ignore the water accumulating from a leak? This sounds a lot like wishful thinking, IMHO. Why should she lie? Who knows, it's not something that we ever understand. Why would she complain about a leak if it occurred in a place she never looked or used? lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=312
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 21, 2012 12:36:55 GMT -5
Sure they would—but only assuming BRH did all that stuff. What I was asking was, what tangible evidence do we have that BRH’s mood and behavior changed after the kidnapping—the things Anna is supposed to have noticed. For example, if he started cringing every time he heard a police siren, like David Janssen in The Fugitive, that would be a tangible change in behavior.
I agree that she’s the primary user of the pantry closet, but that top shelf was evidently used for storage and was out of her reach. The shelf wasn’t like other parts of the pantry, where she’d be constantly putting things like pots and pans back and forth.
To do a reality check, I just went to my own kitchen. There’s a couple of high shelves behind a cupboard door. I had to open the door just to remind myself what was there—a stack of plates we haven’t used in years. I see nothing unusal in a high shelf used for storage.
As far as ignoring the leak goes—she complained to the landlord several times.
By the way, speaking of The Fugitive, I think I've figured out why there were so few prints in the nursery--the one-armed man did it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 21, 2012 13:10:29 GMT -5
Ach du lieber!
If Anna was really an accessory to the crime, why did she spend over fifty years trying to have the case reopened? That’s what you call “pushing your luck.”
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2012 13:36:09 GMT -5
That's your rationale?? That's what exonerates a major case suspect? The supposedly honest woman who spent the proceeds from a kidnapping without ever questioning the source?
I think you will have to do better than that BR.
I have seen countless time spent on suspects with much less to go on, but the tireless crusader Anna gets a free pass.
For the record, I don't see any evidence that she was a participant in the planning or commission of the crime. Then again, I don't see any that would exclude her. What I do see is evidence that she was far more knowledgeable and involved with the actions of her husband and his finances than some would like to believe. That's why it is important to look at everything relating to their relationship and history. I'm sorry if you feel their actions prior to the crime are as unimportant as their son's breakfast ( a subject of which I believe someone brought up regarding Charlie), any good detective would not agree.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 21, 2012 14:31:01 GMT -5
No, but it’s a factor to be weighed. If I was guilty of a crime, and got off scot-free, I sure wouldn’t hang around the courts trying to get the case re-opened.
What free pass? People on this thread have been dissing her pretty good.
Sorry, the way I put that (about the breakfast cereal) was sarcastic. I apologize for that. I DO agree that if Anna was complicit in the crime, her pre-crime behavior would certainly be relevant. However, as far as having that tiff with Hans goes—this was a 3-month excursion, and when people are cooped up with each other on a long trip, they start to annoy each other. They get in each other’s grill. You know, they start to say things like, “MUST you pick your teeth like that every five minutes?!” I figured the postcard argument was probably just one of those straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back things—a routine show of temper that might happen to anybody. I just didn’t figure it as significant to the LKC.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2012 16:21:30 GMT -5
They interviewed many who worked there which led to them interviewing people who became acquainted with him while watching the Board.
You'll remember that Mulligan actually testified for the Prosecution - something I am quite sure Wilentz regretted. While the Prosecution absolutely knew a partnership existed between Hauptmann and Fisch, they believed the Defense couldn't prove it because the information they needed was being withheld by the State. And so they proceeded with the "Lone-Wolf" theory hoping to "prove" Hauptmann a liar concerning the partnership which would hurt him in the eyes of the Jury all the while firming up the State's Lone-Wolf assertion.
What Mulligan did was testify truthfully that a partnership did exist which caught Wilentz off-guard who then quickly resorted to damage control measures. It was one time where his illegal tactics actually blew up in his face.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 21, 2012 16:34:02 GMT -5
BR, you may be correct. It may all be insignificant. Anna may well be innocent. This is just the way I try to sort this out. There are so many books on the crime, very few deal in depth with Richard and Anna pre LKC.
Michael, could they determine whether Richard used ransom money or not? For example, Hauptmann deposited $600 at Carlton & Mott on 4/8/32. Would the brokerage have the serial # list? Would they check? Would that money be deposited at a NY bank?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 21, 2012 17:02:14 GMT -5
That's a long-lived, Mighty Battle for Anna to spend her life trying to clear his name, if she thought him guilty. Seems to me anyway . Kevkon, could you elaborate some on your thinking about the CA trip? Was it the expense of it? I've seen it referred to before as having some significance, but haven't been able to get a hook in it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2012 19:30:12 GMT -5
There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking a close look at Anna. I think that should be done with everyone. What's consistent about her is what she was saying about the finances. She told everyone they always had money. She told the Wollenburgs, for example, that they had save 12K before the California trip. She told the Police in her 9-21 statement they never had any money trouble.
This could be true, untrue but what she believed, or a lie. If its a lie then its a pre-planned one which she's telling people well before Hauptmann's arrest.
Amy also made a good point about the 4K. I happen to believe that story.
There's a couple of points BR has made that I have made myself in the past. They seem to indicate that if Anna's a liar then why only in some spots and not others which would really help Hauptmann?
But then he makes another point which seems to hurt the prospect that she isn't in the know:
This is true - so - it doesn't help the point he is attempting to compliment. We must consider all of the facts then come to a personal conclusion.
If one cannot be reached then leave it open until such time you feel comfortable in doing so. Don't allow yourself to identify with, or become loyal to a certain personality because that will definitely hinder your ability to solve this thing.
I quoted her statement to the Police about why. So it might not be a big deal but for the reason she originally stated. You cannot dismiss it because you do not happen to like it.
I don't understand this point. Anna told the Police what the situation was. If you don't believe her then how can you believe her elsewhere? Additionally, there is more in other reports coming from other people too.
Look, her husband was on trial for his life. Allies were scarce, and most who knew him were afraid of being accused of complicity - so they kept their distance. Some of the most loyal stuck by him and Anna circled the wagons. Do you suggest she should have cut ties with the Henkels under these circumstances? Well she didn't. She denied the affair occurred even though its pretty obvious she was aware it had. What choice did she have unless she herself were going to walk away?
I absolutely know that none of the ransom money was ever traced to any of these brokerage firms. However, I don't know if that means 100% that it hadn't - just that nothing could be traced back to them.
There is a FBI Report that states Germans were buying Gold Certs at $12 for a $10 etc. in these brokerage houses so they could take it to Germany to exchange. They surmised that Hauptmann may have laundered his money in this way at face value and/or actually making money on the sale. However, they were never able to prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 8:05:12 GMT -5
As I read this thread, I can see why it is important to look at the life style of BRH prior to the kidnapping. Considering the time period of just 1930 to early 1932, Richard and Anna seem to be enjoying a more stable financial environment than so very many people at that particular period. With massive unemployment, financial devastation and suicides resulting from the stock market conditions, the Hauptmanns are able to save a very large amount of money, quit their jobs and leave $4000.00 dollars behind, buy a car, travel across the USA and then return home and still be monetarily sound is unbelievable considering the state our country was in at the time. I guess they never had to stand in a bread line or visit a soup kitchen for a much needed meal. They were either the most frugal couple around or there was an influx of money coming from somewhere enabling them to live more comfortably than most in their income bracket. Is it possible that Hauptmann had received an advance payment for his participation in the future kidnapping of Charlie? Since the kidnapping had been planned for a year or so before it occurred, perhaps this is where some of their monies were coming from. Hauptmann must have lost money in the stock market just like everyone else. I don't see how those investments could account for all the money needed to do what they did. Quitting their jobs when people were losing them on a daily basis seems crazy to me. Weren't they concerned about how they would manage when they returned without having employment for the future?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2012 9:49:10 GMT -5
Amy, Michael, I completely agree that the pre LKC period is critical to understanding what occurred. It's only unfortunate that we have so little to examine.
I'm glad you both brought up the $4000 Hauptmann claimed to have saved. Several things strike me about this claim and his testimony regarding it. First, Richard claims that this money was unknown to Anna, it was supposed to be a surprise. If that's so, then we have to dismiss this from Anna's claim of their worth as she didn't know about it. Second, Hauptmann claimed to have kept in in a locked trunk under bed linens and seasonal clothing. Now does it seem likely to anyone that Anna would not care or need to have access to that trunk? Is it believable that this large trunk sat locked with items she would need and she never asked to open it? Isn't this getting to sound familiar? A shelf that she never ever looked at and a linen trunk she never opened. I'm not finding these stories very credible. Another thing I find interesting, Richard keeps the $4000 he claims to have saved in a place he considers safe, the locked linen trunk. Yet, when it comes to the money he claims Fisch left he hides it in a variety of ways in the Garage. Nothing in these actions make any sense.
Now as to the claim that Hauptmann had been paid in advance, hence his carefree actions in 1931, I suppose it's possible. But isn't it just as likely that he had a previous source of illegal profit?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 22, 2012 15:00:02 GMT -5
Sorry if the post of my "impressions" of Anna offended. Will be more cautious in future posts. (Maybe impressions only count in horseshoes ;D) I agree that all the players in the LKC should be looked at.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2012 15:59:18 GMT -5
They haven't offended me, in fact, they enlighten me. I for one feel lucky that you have chosen to share your thoughts here. I wanted to first post the relevent section of Whipple here (that obviously backs up Kevin) then later when I get some time to throw a few of my thoughts out there.... Attachments:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2012 17:07:59 GMT -5
Mairi, I hope you don't think I took offense. I don't even know what could be offensive about your post. Actually, I was going to tell a story relating to Anna's claim. Presently I am interested in the tale of the trunk, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 18:16:24 GMT -5
Mairi, I have never seen an offensive post by you. I always enjoy and learn from the things you post. I hope that someday I will know as much as you do about this case!!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 22, 2012 18:31:09 GMT -5
i have pictures of that shelf as it looks today. when i was in the house i should have measured the height of the top shelf. its amazing its still there
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 22, 2012 19:41:45 GMT -5
Perhaps, but I believe it’s far more likely that Anna had both the common sense to recognize how Wilentz would have demolished a false claim like that on the witness stand (“So you observed a strange paper-wrapped box on the top shelf of your broom closet, a shelf you knew was constantly wet from leaking water and as a conscientious housekeeper, you allowed it to remain there while not even mentioning it to your husband?”) and that her evasive witness stand response is consistent with a deliberated explanation that probably preceded Richard’s arrest. The Fisch Story wasn’t called that for only plain obvious reasons.
Regardless of what was spent, the results speak for themselves, BR. The final tally isn’t even close and never will be.. Hauptmann wrote each and every ransom note. For a real eyeopener, check out Hauptmann's "mini-autobiography" he wrote to his then-lawyer James Fawcett on Oct. 3, 1934 and any of the ransom notes for handwriting, spelling and grammar comparison. He might well have said, "I did it."
I won’t even comment on the veracity of any of the above eyewitness testimony, for or against Hauptmann.. all of them reek of something unsavoury. As far as Anna’s or Richard’s recollection of the night of the kidnapping, they had absolutely no verifiable proof outside of the fact that on most Tuesday evenings, Richard picked her up at quitting time and drove her home. Yet she maintained this for the rest of her life like a scripture carved in stone, devoid of one iota of corroborating evidence. Was she lying? I’d prefer to say she wanted to believe it more than anything else.
Apparently, the Hauptmanns had room for about twenty evening dresses which Marie Hahn estimated to have cost $20 each. ($400 each today) Marie was invited by Anna to look at her dresses prior to her trip to Germany. I have copies of the full reports from Fred and Marie Hahn and excerpts of these can be found in Fisher’s Ghosts of Hopewell. The Hahns were never called to testify at the trial.
In her position, could she really have travelled anything broader than a knife's edge?
The Henkels and their other friends, outside of many of the general German speaking population who sent cheques of support, were about as good as it would get for the Hauptmanns, but I have to believe if any of those close friends had sung the way investigators should have had them doing, there would have been more trials to follow after Richard’s.
|
|