Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2006 14:13:45 GMT -5
Through the years, Mrs. Hauptmann maintained the same story: that on March 1, 1932, the night the child was kidnapped -- that "nasty and cold night," as she called it during a 1991 visit to Flemington -- her husband picked her up from the bakery where she worked and the two drove to their home in the Bronx, where they stayed through the night.
excerpt from:
Anna Hauptmann's Crusade October 20, 1994 Hunterdon County Democrat
I've previously posted my observations on Anna Hauptmann's reported comments about the night of March 1, 1932, being "nasty and cold" on LindyKidnap. I thought I'd raise them on this discussion board for further discussion.
What I find interesting about this quote, is that Anna and Bruno, according to their own accounts, did not hear about the Lindbergh baby being kidnapped until the morning after, March 2. Anna claims she was in the bakery and overheard a customer discussing it.
Whenever we hear of a major world event, we tend to remember that moment frozen in time, where we were and what we were doing. I recall news of the Kennedy assassination, my exact seated position in my Grade 5 classroom and the stunned silence of my classmates. I remember turning on the evening news and hearing of Princess Diana's tragic death. But I couldn't for the life of me, describe any personal memories or level of detail about the night or even morning, prior to either of these events.
Is this a rational argument? It keeps popping up in my mind as a kind of unsettled thought and I'm looking for others' own thoughts and experiences here.
Is it possible she actually recalled the specific weather conditions of the night she claimed to have driven home from the bakery with her husband? Was she perhaps speaking in a rhetorical manner as a means of describing the night of the event as reported by the newspapers? Or is it possible that there was something very memorable and personal about the night of March 1, 1932 that she was expressing almost unconsciously at a deeper level of recognition?
Despite her long suffering public protestations over her husband being as "innocent as you and I," I've never been able to eliminate Anna as a possible accomplice, or at least one who ultimately understood the true source of their financial enrichment.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2006 16:48:16 GMT -5
Since I am never quite sure anymore who to believe and what is true or not , I have to ask this question. Was this alibi for BRH first remembered at the time of the trial or earlier?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2006 20:53:37 GMT -5
I believe that both Anna and Hauptmann expressed a general lack of clarity about his movements on March 1, 1932, which under normal circumstances for anyone else, would not be surprising, given the amount of time which had passed between the event and September of 1934.
It seems reasonable that if he was complicit in the kidnapping, then his lack of immediate recall about what he was doing during the day and night of March 1, was not based on a true lack of awareness, as it would apply to the general population.
Significant forethought and planning would be absolutely necessary in establishing a natural sounding and progressive unfolding of his actual day's events, even if false - as it would have applied to one who would have been truly oblivious to what was to happen later that day.
Anna's comments about that "nasty and cold night," made in 1991, were the first of this kind, to my knowledge, and so for the reasons above, I wonder about this perhaps having been an unconscious admission of her own personal and clear memories of that night.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 15, 2006 17:40:13 GMT -5
I think what I meant was when did the alibi materialize? Upon Hauptmann's arrest, during the trial or sometime in between? I have read that Anna and BRH were still unclear about it even during the trial.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 15, 2006 18:46:22 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm not sure when the actual alibis materialized for BRH and Anna. BRH never could provide a satisfactory accounting of his full day on March 1 and even Anna's own alibi was called into question by the Fredericksen's uncertainty over whether she had actually worked at the bakery that evening.
Fisher in his book, gives a detailed account of how the Hauptmanns during visits, seemed to be struggling together towards a believable scenario right up to the trial date. Anna seems to have been a very strong driving force behind this and I can believe she was working between her husband's and friend's accounts to try and come up with something believable.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by kathy for joe on Mar 17, 2006 9:38:01 GMT -5
Happy ST Patrick's Day, I'd like to commnent on your Kennedy observation. I was also inschool when the annoucement came and I lived in the mid-west (upper) and it was a cold and nasty day there. i remember going to shop with my mom for snow boots that afternoon an I walked to and from school (you know 6miles each way in the snow!) anyway i think in the 30's and in the north weather was always a bigger deal than when we were young. also, i think a woman might think of a small child and the horrible conditions of the nignt before. i think anne and betty worried that the kidnappers didn't take the bsaby's blanket.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2006 11:19:55 GMT -5
Happy St. Paddy's to you Kathy and everyone else!
I can certainly understand that a woman and mother might have been considering the wellbeing of a baby while trying to picture the night in which it was abducted. But I also think one might be more likely to recall the event in terms of a "terrible or shocking event," "awful business," "sad night," "unthinkable nightmare" or by some phrase that spoke of the tragic proportions, relative to even major world events of the time.
What appears to be a reference to the weather itself (for the night prior to the morning she heard about the kidnapping) has always intrigued me as perhaps having been a kind of unconscious revelation of a personal experience on Anna'a part.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Malory on Mar 22, 2006 13:28:24 GMT -5
Did she get picked up later that evening then usual or something like that? I think I remember reading that it was possible for him to have driven from Hopewell to NYC in time. Something like 60 minutes. And didn't he pick her up at 8:30. He left work early that day, that we know (time card issue) drove to NJ, seen at dusk, grabbed baby, killed baby, burried baby, went to NYC.
|
|
|
Post by rick for mallory on Apr 1, 2006 7:42:09 GMT -5
Rick for Mallory...I dont think its possible. Recent estimates are that it would take 2 full hours to drive from the Bronx to Highfields. Keeping in mind that the closer you get the slower you get on rural one lane back roads near Hopewell. Now you need to unload all your gear, supplies and ladder and hike acrossed rugged terrain for 3/4 of a mile in the mud and rain and rocks. Then back thru Hopewell to Princeton and Route One. Its a super human feat for any one person to accomplish this in under 8 hours. Maybe an olympic athlete, not a stock broker/carpenter. And thats only if everything goes perfect in the dark.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 9:11:07 GMT -5
We have Lupica sighting the car and ladders around 6, that would enable Hauptmann/ kidnappers time for staging, pull off the crime, and get back to the Bronx in time. Who do you suppose has to pull off a crime like this so early so as to be home in time?
|
|
|
Post by for kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 9:22:10 GMT -5
with such a time constraint and the need to show up for anna ALONE, why don't you think this mastermind wouldn't have coome with ashovel in the trunk to hide the body? Wasn't driving toward Princeton aalittle out of Hauptamns way
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2006 10:43:44 GMT -5
The Hauptmanns struggled together for an alibi for Richard, right up until the trial. I still see nothing solid to conclude that either Anna or Richard were in Fredericksen's bakery on the night of March 1, 1932. Neither Christian nor Katie could testify to any degree of certainty that Anna was there that night or the next morning.
The accounts and credibility of the defense witnesses to support the Hauptmann's story were very weak. It's not difficult to conclude that like some of the prosecution witnesses, they were either mistaken, of unsound mind, or were deliberately looking for attention at the expense of the truth. We also know the Fredericksen's were unequivocal supporters of the Hauptmanns in general, which in itself is quite noble in the face of all of the direct circumstantial evidence against him and the anti-Hauptmann sentiments of the time.
The account of Katie Fredericksen being attacked and robbed as she left the bakery some time between March 1 and April 2, 1932 is an interesting one. Details of the account are in Fisher's "Ghosts of Hopewell," pages 132-133. After Hauptmann's arrest, she came to believe it might have been he who was the robber, but basically opted not to pursue the matter, stating that this man had enough troubles and that she did not want to cause him any more.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 11:22:09 GMT -5
"with such a time constraint and the need to show up for anna ALONE, why don't you think this mastermind wouldn't have coome with ashovel in the trunk to hide the body? Wasn't driving toward Princeton aalittle out of Hauptamns way " (guest)
Why would he think to bring a shovel? Are you suggesting the murder was intentional? There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows Hauptmann traveling through Princeton. There is some evidence, abet weak, that more than one person was present at the kidnapping. Finally I just don't see the work of a mastermind here.
Joe, I am glad you brought the attack on Mrs. Fredericksen up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 19:22:23 GMT -5
I think 2 hours is a conservative figure - especially considering they just pulled off this crime and have a baby to get rid of. Many variables to consider here as well.
I believe Anna remembered hearing about the case on the radio and this put the timing of events in her head. I am convinced she would have remembered that Hauptmann had not picked her up that night. The Defense alibi Witnesses compliment this, especially since Hauptmann loved the Fredrickson's dog, Whoppie, who was said to have loved him more then the Fredricksons. And of course we have Mrs. Rauch hearing Hauptmann in the apartment, and Miller seeing the light on in that apartment the night of March 1st.
Fredrickson, it is to be remembered, wandered down to Hauptmann's place after hearing of his arrest and told Police he was sure Hauptmann had nothing to do with the crime. Mrs. Fredrickson said the same thing too. As time went by, Mrs. Fredrickson began to wonder that if Hauptmann had been involved whether or not it may have been him that robbed her in Mid-March of $140.00. I think that would be a natural thing to ponder under the circumstances.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 1, 2006 23:16:01 GMT -5
"I believe Anna remembered hearing about the case on the radio and this put the timing of events in her head. I am convinced she would have remembered that Hauptmann had not picked her up that night."
Michael, how could Anna recall that level of detail, 2 1/2 years later, unless she could positively affix some recollection of the significance of the night before, with what would have been just another Tuesday night working late at the bakery? In at least one account, Anna related she was at the bakery on the morning of March 2, and overheard a couple talking about a newspaper article of the kidnapping. Hauptmann claimed he heard about it while travelling into the city on the same morning.
Bottom line is that neither Anna nor Hauptmann told anyone they heard about the kidnapping on the night it happened. What then would make either one of them think back to their actions of the night before, if they were not part of that event? People don't process information that way, unless there is something that can positively affix a personal experience to the past event.
As a general question to all, do you remember your exact surroundings and what you were doing when you first heard about a plane flying into the World Trade Center? Of course everyone does. Now 4 1/2 years later, describe your actions of the night before, the same evening the suicide hijackers were preparing their final plans for the next morning.
I submit that unless you had good personal reason to recall your actions on the evening of September 10, or you kept a very good record of your activities, you would not be able to come up with a detailed account of your activities, for what would have represented just another ordinary evening in your life.
How is that then that Anna recalls driving home with Hauptmann, Mrs. Rauch remembers hearing Hauptmann talking to someone, and the plumber recalls seeing a light on in the Hauptmann apartment on the night of March 1, which was for all they knew at the time, just another ordinary evening? This is either astounding human recall, or just plain too good to be true and I highly suspect the latter.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2006 15:52:19 GMT -5
Michael, how could Anna recall that level of detail, 2 1/2 years later, unless she could positively affix some recollection of the significance of the night before, with what would have been just another Tuesday night working late at the bakery? Because she testified to it. We both know she wouldn't testify to something that didn't happen. Next, I believe the example you use to highlight your point is flawed. Let me present this instead: What if you had a very close friend who was supposed to have moved to Europe and you hadn't heard from them since. You think its a simple case of (2) people losing touch. Now let's say that about 2-1/2 years later you discover this person actually died in that attack. I assert that you would remember the circumstances which surrounded the last time you saw this person - especially if you sat down and thought about it.Anna relied on Hauptmann bringing her home. She would remember being "stood up" by her husband and would have put two and two together. Of course it doesn't mean Hauptmann wasn't involved if he's not in Hopewell, but we must consider the circumstantial evidence which exists that points to him not being there. I am looking at the totality of the circumstances. So while you could challenge Miller's recollection, I think challenging all is a much harder thing to do. Additionally, I think a nosy Mrs. Rauch type is a fairly good source of information.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2006 18:02:35 GMT -5
First off, Anna may not have lied outright in her testimony but she was clearly being evasive, at kindest, with regards to the top shelf and its contents. This was not a convincing picture for any jury, coming from a woman who took meticulous pride in her domestic kitchen routine. I note what you're saying about a missed friend and struggle one would be willing to undertake to recollect personal details of last seeing that person. But I think you've missed my basic point and don't understand the parallels within your argument.
What reason would Anna have had to connect herself or her husband, with an non-personal event which occured on the night of March 1, if she had not heard about it that night? She didn't hear about the kidnapping until the next morning. Are you suggesting that when she heard about the kidnapping, she would have naturally thought back to the night before, in order to try and reconstruct the collective activities of her and her husband? For what purpose? Why wouldn't she have included something of this importance, with every ounce of it's pertinent detail, within her testimony?
This is only one reason I continue to find her "recollection" of driving home from the bakery around 9:30 on that exact night, so difficult to believe. The Hauptmann's frequent alibi-searching conversations at the Flemington jail I believe, also seem to sum up their frustration in not being able to produce an account which could also be satisfactorily proven. And I think they both realized that all along.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Apr 2, 2006 19:00:06 GMT -5
Anna's husband had been arrested for kidnapping and murder, which would have been enough reason for her to try and remember where they'd been that night and what they'd been doing.
I think you just want her to be involved and are frustrated because there's no evidence that she was. Anna was not any sort of criminal, had no criminal tendencies and would not have taken part in any crime
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2006 19:59:40 GMT -5
Carol, I have no personal agenda against Hauptmann or Anna towards their whereabouts on the night of March 1. Where I have great difficulty is that she was able to unequivocally state that they drove home together that evening, based on her personal recollection of a night, which would otherwise have no specific reason (for them at that very time) to stand out in memory.
The evidence tells us the Hauptmanns were simply not able to come up with a collective reckoning of their activities on that night. It seemed to take a whole different breed of witness, of highly questionable intent and conjured up by Ed Reilly, to attempt to do this. It seems apparent that none of these accounts seemed to mesh conclusively with the Hauptmann's own recollections.
Do you understand what it was specifically, that crystallized this image of Anna driving home with her husband on the night of March 1? If not, wouldn't you be curious?
|
|
|
Post by eliana on Apr 3, 2006 16:51:31 GMT -5
Maybe Anna & Richard went some where and had a wildly romantic love making night in their car, and didn't tell the details of their ride home. When they heard the news of the kidnapping the next day they could have said to themselves those poor parents were going through hell last night and we were in heaven, I feel so bad for them. Stranger things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by for eliana on Apr 3, 2006 17:54:50 GMT -5
I agree and have posted that before. I think a woman would have thought "I remember running to the car in that horrible rain and driving home in that wind and that poor little baby was out in that." That is what would stick in my head. If Richard hadn't of picked her up she would have remembered walking home on that nasty night. Even if she hadn't worked which seems unlikely because she was very dependable she might have asked her husband "you were out night, did you see any of the road blocks,etc? We just dont know.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 4, 2006 14:45:27 GMT -5
A world reknown wood anatomist, who shall remain nameless, suggested to me just last week that we would all find it more profitable to research the possiblity that Isador Fisch was having an affair with Anna? That might be the only way this string could sink to an even lower level than it has already. I dont know for certain how late Anna worked or how late BRH picked her up and took her home but I do know that CAL waited over two hours to open up the ransom note after calling the NJSP to make certain that his own prints werent on the nursery note. Nationally syndicated news outlets started calling the local police Dept asking for info sometime between 10:30 and 11pm EST. The Police Record Book is in the Archives and even lists a caller named Bruno? So how were Anna and Bruno supposed to hear the big news so late at nite when most new agrencies didnt hear until 11-12pm? You dont necessarily remember where you were "at the precise time when the Baby is reportedly snatched" BUT RATHER I believe you remember where you were when you "first heard the news"? In thier case likely the next day Wednesday 2 March 1932 like everyone else?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 4, 2006 18:25:04 GMT -5
Rick, this is exactly my point about personal recollection when one first hears of a major event having taken place; it's all about when and where one first hears of it. Anna and Richard did not claim to have head about the kidnapping until the next morning. Therefore, there would be no logical reason for them to have connected the kidnapping with their own previous evening, just another routine Tuesday for Anna to work late at the bakery. It is obvious that despite the fact Richard usually picked up Anna at the bakery most Tuesday evenings, they had to work very hard at coming up with a believable alibi for this specific evening during Anna's many visits to the Flemington Jail, and never did succeed.
I believe it was Harry Bruno, Lindbergh's press and publicity agent (former?) who had called NJSP police the night of the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2006 20:08:04 GMT -5
It was also Harry Bruno who suggested they bring in Lt. Finn.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 9:42:29 GMT -5
I know the mere mention of Anna's complicity in this crime brings forth emotional responses ( and smites) but since every person remotely connected with the case and some not has been considered suspect I think it fair to include her as well. I am not saying I think she was, mind you. I am sure she was a wonderful woman. But imagine yourself in her place after the arrest. The realization that her husband was somehow involved must have crossed her mind at some point. Richard's sudden enrichment, of which she benefited, her firsthand knowledge of his criminal history in Germany, and who knows whatever other strange behavior she may have observed in her husband, all must have given cause to suspect him. Not to say that this would mean he actually kidnapped and murdered the child , but he was in some way involved. I don't think it would be difficult to understand why she would be so adamant and devoted to his exoneration.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2006 10:37:25 GMT -5
A valid point, Kevin. I'm really surprised that as the close, ten-year partner of the convicted man, and given the scope of conclusive forensic evidence connecting him to this crime, she emerges so relatively unscathed and above consideration for complicity. Anna may have been perceived as a shrinking German hausfrau, but we also know she displayed a striking similarity to Hauptmann in the field of grim determination, as demonstrated by her tireless campaign to exonerate her husband until her death. Can we be absolutely certain she was devoid of any ability to act as her husband clearly had?
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 13, 2006 15:29:32 GMT -5
I think if Anna had been involved she wouldn't have risked being found out by trying to clear Richards name. She had her son to care for and wouldn't want to be taken from him if she were found guilty of involvement.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 13, 2006 15:30:35 GMT -5
I feel if Anna had been involved she would have let it all drop when Richard was executed, why would she have risked having someone digging into all of it again and take the chance of being found out if she were involved. She wouldn't have risked being taken away from her son to prove her husbands innocense if she herself were guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2006 16:26:23 GMT -5
Elyssa,
I understand where they are coming from. It is in-line with my own "leave no stone unturned" approach to this case, however, I see no evidence whatsoever that Anna was involved in any way. She simply believed and stood by her husband.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 13, 2006 19:14:17 GMT -5
"I see no evidence whatsoever that Anna was involved in any way."
But she was involved whether she knew it or not. Is it possible to believe that the sudden enrichment the Hauptmanns enjoyed during the depression could not have given Anna cause to suspect the source of the wealth?
|
|