Mueller has always been in my sites as a possible accomplice on Hauptmann's end. Does anyone think he's not telling where he got the gun because it leads directly to him - because of this case or simply to protect him from a possible gun charge? I mean, he gave up Fisch rather easily and I have strong feelings about his involvement too (on Hauptmann's end).
I agree that Mueller was probably tied in somewhow beyond the Liliput and that Hauptmann was being protective of him and wife Maria through his sheer and unbending denial of involvement. It would have been the only way to keep them and any other family, friends or acquaintances from possibly joining him in the chair or spending time behind bars. But not quite so altruistic as one might initially think here, after all he had no intention of giving up #1.
Here there had to have been one very well understood oath of silence, perhaps a touch of the Holy Vehm secret society with the same level of implied repercussions, to have such a far reaching effect and the same level of muteness within that tainted circle.
It's still a headshaker to me that no one other than the Hahn's came forward. Perhaps we just don't hear about that tide of confession, authorities having discouraged it to maintain the strength of their campaign to target Hauptmann as the lone wolf he officially became. As I recall the Muellers left the state and moved down south shortly after the trial.
But I suppose one would ask: "what could have Mueller's role been?" "was he in it from the beginning and it if so, why doesn't his bank account show it?"
As far as 'why' people weren't coming forward. They may have had nothing to say in regards to witnessing something pointing to him in this way. Many people, I think, truly did not believe he did this. Federickson, Kloppenburg, etc. Achenbach did come forward but her information, when applied to the timeline, occurred a full year after when she said it did making it worthless but not keeping the Prosecution, who knew this, from using her testimony anyway.
Rauch did, and again, even with stuff design to hurt Hauptmann but really didn't mean anything. In fact his being a cheapskate and still living there helps his cause (imo).
Just as some will never accept that Anna knew of her husbands illegal activities I can not believe that Kloppenberg was completely ignorant of what Richard was up to. They were too close. If nothing else, then BRH's sudden financial situation and activities related to getting rid of the Lindy notes would have tipped him off. i think there were probably more than a few Hauptmann acquaintances that had an idea that all was not right.
I don't know exactly what Kloppenberg knew, but I know he must have had some idea that Hauptmann was up to something. I would also say that sharing the journey across the country would leave little about a person unknown.
If there is a point, it's that people covered for Hauptmann. They lied, they obfuscated and generally played dumb. Do you really think it possible to share a ride in a 31 Dodge across the country with a man and not have an inkling about his "other side"? Do you really think that a close friend could suddenly become enriched in such a depressed economy without raising all sorts of red flags? Do you really think such a friend could have this completely different circle of acquaintances and spend the time needed without the other circle noticing it?
I think this is why its important to take this point case by case. There are other reasons why someone might not come forward other then to protect Hauptmann. One might be to protect themselves.
Protecting themselves may encompass a variety of reasons. It could be fear. Fear of threats, injury, or death. Fear of false arrest. It could be they were involved. It could be they were doing something illegal themselves and coming forward with this might draw attention to themselves.
I personally believe Kloppenberg told the truth. He had a strong dislike for Fisch. He was known in both Germany and America as being very honest. He was threatened by the Police, like Condon was, but he continued to stick by his story then throughout his life up to his death. He did not believe Hauptmann "did it." During the '31 trip, it was Anna that K fought with (over postcards) causing a "rift" in the friendship. Now IF K was as honest as all the reports indicate, then it makes sense to me that Hauptmann wouldn't share his illegal activities to him.
Anna herself would be someone who appeared to lie yet told the truth causing serious damage to her husband's defense. For me, someone doesn't lie to achieve one end then tell the truth to completely undo the reason for lying in the first place.
I honestly can't think of anyone who I would say "lied." Which would you include and why? Do you really think Kloppenberg lied?
Now there was a little group that must have collectively breathed a huge sigh of relief once authorities had packed away their extended suspicion in favor of nailing Hauptmann alone in payment for his own obvious guilt, denial and mutism. And never mind Kloppenburg as far as I'm concerned, who would have had to have been braindead not to realize his best friend was involved up to his neck through the subsequent unfolding of his activities and trail of physical curcumstantial evidence. What truly amazes me is how Anna, who claimed to have known her husband better than anyone over ten years of marriage and certainly must have been aware of his direct involvement, had the audacity to petition on a lifelong basis for his exoneration, an action that continuously had the effect of casting shadows of suspicion or guilt over others. These two had engaged in a primordial and mutual level of secrecy that over time, had wrung out the last drop of bare truth, honour and decency and become a solitary and suffocating silence.
I honestly can't think of anyone who I would say "lied." Which would you include and why? Do you really think Kloppenberg lied?Michael
Absolutely You can't pick and choose here. Kloppy might have been a great guy for all I know and Anna might have been a great woman. But they certainly knew something was up with BRH unless we are to believe that they were complete idiots. Does that mean that they committed perjury? Perhaps not. But there's a fine line between not "telling the truth" and not telling everything you know.
I think his explanations may have been accepted. Like the market, and Fisch's partnership. I mean people were handing over money to him to invest during this uncertain time. As far as Anna, in her statement (a page of which I posted in other thread in response to Joe's question) she is asked about going through her husband's pockets. Her response was that she never did and never will - I don't know, maybe its me - but I believe her when she says this. I think its more like trust and less like stupidity.
Now of course, this wouldn't apply to everyone.... As far as K goes, I see him as wanting to believe he was innocent and saw no signs of his involvement in the kidnapping. I do believe he thought Fisch was to blame and so, like Uhlig, defended Hauptmann knowing what Fisch was capable of.
These are just my opinions and its why I think its important to get everyone's impression of these things.
If Hauptmann was was the mastermind and sole individual of the crime from the beginning of the plan to the receipt of the ransom think of the burden he would have alone . Its almost unbelievable how it would dominate your mind, time, and everything you did. For at least one person in his circle not to significantly see this within him is almost impossible. I find it very difficult that Hauptmann planned the kidnapping but could find it understandable that he was a primary in carrying it out. If you add Fisch's seemingly skillful help to exchange the gold notes I can understand that in the most critical times he was not alone. I don't think Hauptmann had to find the inside help. I think it was already there. He just had to maintain it. This is just how I view the crime. I have reasons to see it this way but never would say I could prove it or even be worthwhile for someone else to consider.
I have reasons to see it this way but never would say I could prove it or even be worthwhile for someone else to consider. (Garyb)
You should consider activating your account so that you can get credit for your posts.
I think what you've said above is very interesting, and definitely worthwhile to consider. I think other then Steve, there haven't been too many of us that believes if Hauptmann was involved - that he did it all by himself. That's important. Even Jim Fisher, the champion of that cause, has resorted to fiction, and relied on many mistakes (as reflected in his books) that I think they actually support the position of multiple involvement. Ghosts was probably the worst book on this case ever written by someone claiming to have done research.
Please tell us more details about your beliefs here... For me, what we have to do is find a solution that makes the most amount of sense - that actually fits. Before Kevin the ladder didn't make sense to me but now, thanks to his research and expertise, it finally does.
Here's a little more from Hauptmann on the gun for Kevin & Joe......From the Huddleson Report:
"There was something mysterious about Fisch. I didn't want to have a pistol charge against me."
(Do you expect the police to believe you now?)
"What would the $800 be to me."
(Did you lie to save yourself from further trouble? Why didn't you throw the gun away? You know it was wrong to have it?)
And something earlier that may interest some:
(Public opinion; did your wife tell you about what people thought?)
"No. Only about the child. And what I get to eat, do I sleep well, and so on."
(Didn't she ask if you were hiding someone?)
"Yes, I told her I was not shielding anybody."
Last Edit: Nov 13, 2008 15:53:11 GMT -5 by Michael
I think it's important to keep something in mind when looking at these various quotes and reports regarding Hauptmann. The man is an extremely accomplished liar. That's a fact not an opinion. That fact is exemplified by how well he was able to spin his sudden enrichment and change in lifestyle.
Definitely a liar. Accomplished depends from whose perspective... Accomplished to those who believed everything he said... Or those benefiting from it....
Next, do we disregard everything he says as a lie because we know he did lie, or rather, do we weigh it against probability and those things we know he was telling the truth about?
Some things he seemed prepared for, and other things he came up with very lame excuses. The "Fisch Story"is probably the most famous. But - can we say beyond all doubt Fisch didn't give him this box of Lindy Loot before he left? Personally, I think he actually did. Having said that though, it doesn't mean he didn't know what it was or that he was innocent because of it.
See what I mean?
I think we get struck in the pitfalls of previous theories so that while new information may be developed - we apply that info to incorrect scenarios. Applying them to where they actually belong is like when you solved the ladder mystery - thinking outside of the old tired theories that simply do not work, finding new information because of it, then coming up with a more likely situation as a result.
Accomplished depends from whose perspective... Accomplished to those who believed everything he said... Or those benefiting from it.... Michael
Accomplished by virtue of practice and personality. This is not a new vocation for Hauptmann, but rather a continuation. Anyone who actually believed everything he said did so with prejudice. No one with any common sense would look at the radical change in his situation at a time of such economic distress and buy into his claims. Nor would or could they fail to notice other strange actions by him.
That's hard for me to say really, and I would think it could be assessed on a case by case basis. For example, your position can be reversed to show just the opposite too, that is, if you are giving him money to invest during these trying times - then you obviously must believe him. Same goes for Fisch and the amounts given to him by others. The other thing is this....he was going to watch the board every day, and no one disputes that. So his explanation is tied into his actions.
But good liars do that....
Next, I think we have to use the exact same arguments, if they apply, to Hauptmann BEFORE the Kidnapping (and elsewhere). Did he sometimes do things that might send up a red-flag then too? How about the trip to California in '31? Did he, for example, act like someone who came into 50 large while on his trip to Florida? Act like someone attempting to launder money in places where he wasn't known?
I think what's important is that Hauptmann was tight-lipped in certain situations but not in others. He was a tight-wad in some situations but again not in others. He was truthful in some instances but in other situations he told not the truth. Some lies seemed anchored in a degree of actuality, while others were just terrible lies which stood out like a sore thumb.
What are the factors which creates the differences?
Some of his "lies" show me a degree of preparation, therefore, he seems ready to explain certain things - obviously to the Police.... This means he considers the fact he may be caught. The key word is certain things.
Why did he stay in the Rauch apartment? Why didn't he launder the money in Florida? Why is he reckless in his spending post spring of '34? Why is he semi-prepared to answer specific questions as it relates to the crime? Why do some of his answers show a complete lack of preparation if this is the case? Why didn't he return to Germany, where he was free to return to without fear of arrest?
Just out of curiosity, is that assessment based on a belief that BRH was completely sane? I personally don't believe he was. It's tough to make assessments of actions by someone who doesn't have both oars in the water let alone look for a pattern of logical consistency,imho.
Just out of curiosity, is that assessment based on a belief that BRH was completely sane? (Kevin)
I believe he's sane in the sense that he was aware of both right and wrong. He may be dealing with other issues, influencers, or circumstances making him predisposed to taking risks associated with negative or criminal acts (I am not saying he is) but that wouldn't make him insane in my opinion.
People may act "crazy", or do "crazy" things but if they know its unacceptable but view the 'gamble' as worth the risk - then I say they are sane.
That would certainly explain why we are seeing things differently. I just can't see Hauptmann as a completely sane individual. I doubt anyone who is sane would ever undertake the actions he did. Just my opinion, but I think he had some real demons driving him on a reckless path.
What do you consider "insane" vs. "risky"? Michael
Even thinking about being involved in a crime against Lindbergh on any level you care to assign. = Insane
Knowingly handling Lindy notes in the Bronx. = Insane
Flaunting even modest common sense by staying in the Bronx while exhibiting an unaccountable new found wealth immediately after the ransom pay off. = Insane
Constructing idiotic fabrications to support a defense which is unsupportable. - Insane Exhibiting a complete lack of remorse or even a basic understanding of the gravity of the participation in the death ( murder) of a small child. = Insane
In my opinion, here there is simply the appearance of a fine line between insanity and mental illness. The bottom line is that Hauptmann was well aware of what he was doing from this crime's inception until the moment he was nabbed red-handed. And at that point, rather than admit his involvement, he put up a pre-conceived wall of pseudo-explanation to demonstrate his "pure innocence, continually supporting and upgrading it until in the end, he was probably partially convinced himself. Call it what you want, but he knew exactly what he was doing and as far as I'm concerned, got every bit of what he deserved. Insane? I don't really think so, but I would call Hauptmann's one of the darkest criminal minds of the past century.
Personally, my mind is always open concerning any angle despite whatever my present position is. I've learned that is the best option over the years while studying this case. Everything I have learned about Hauptmann from researching him in the material was that:
He was always looking for an opportunity to make easy money.
That he usually worked with someone.
He wanted to be a "big-shot."
He was very frugal by nature.
He knew how to keep his mouth shut.
When did something, there was a reason behind it.
Of course I don't know everything about him, only what's in the files and the crime itself, which he undoubtedly in my opinion, had a role in (in some way).
Now I think if certain facts came to light, such as whether or not the child was left where he was found, he had no inside information, that he had no help, and had no plan - the way people like Fisher say it happened - then I'd consider insanity, but even still, he seems to be doing it for the money even if that were the case.
But then I think Lindbergh's flight over the Atlantic might qualify as being insane too, if you measure things in those terms, however, the only difference being what he did was not an illegal act (but it probably should have been).
Ordinarily, most crimes are committed either for reasons involving passion (or something personal), or for something they believe they can get away with. It's a "risk vs reward" type of thing here going on that most law abiding people dismiss when the thoughts flash through their minds.
Criminal minds always consider the real possibility of it.
Someone who is insane doesn't know what they are doing is wrong, or justifies it completely without any remorse and with something completely illogical. They may also truly believe they didn't do it even if they did.
Someone who is insane doesn't know what they are doing is wrong, or justifies it completely without any remorse and with something completely illogical. They may also truly believe they didn't do it even if they did. Michael
Did he ever admit his obvious participation? Did he ever show true remorse over the child's death? Do you really feel his actions are those of a completely rational individual? Does a rational person stand before a jury and the world and make light of an "instrument" that led to the death of an innocent child???
This is just how I see it (for now - I am open minded):
Did he ever admit his obvious participation?(Kevin)
No. But frankly if his position is that he didn't, and he believes this will either get him out of trouble, benefit him in some way, or protect others then I would expect it from someone who is willing to involve themselves in a crime.
Do you know anyone who bought something, say a $2000 TV, from a van driver who said it was "extra" inventory for $500? What is their defense? They didn't know it was stolen, and most who would use this defense will stick to it all the way to the end. Quite convincingly so. But we know they're full of it don't we? We know this by placing ourselves in the situation then conclude we tell the van driver to "go to hell." But we can't get past what we would do IF we did buy it - because we wouldn't.
Did he ever show true remorse over the child's death?
Yes. I believe in his statements he made he indicates remorse for what happened.... he just doesn't indicate he had anything to do with it.
Do you really feel his actions are those of a completely rational individual?
It's my experience, and I've had over 18 years of convicted felons lying to me, that this is the path taken by a high percentage of them. Not all of course, but when they are obviously lying they still stick to their guns and never waver. And I know they're aren't nutz - its a tactic with very low odds BUT the reward is higher if they get lucky.
Does a rational person stand before a jury and the world and make light of an "instrument" that led to the death of an innocent child???
He has to. If his position is that he has nothing to do with it then he must distance himself from it in any way he can. Especially because of the crime because it is connected to it.
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5