kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2012 11:48:58 GMT -5
Wasn't involved??? She was involved up to her neck. She directly benefited from the ransom money. Her life changed for the better after the crime and before the arrest. She knew of her husband's criminal history. She testified that he was with her the night of the crime. She had a major role in the defense. The question is not whether she was involved or not, the question is what did she know or not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2012 14:09:42 GMT -5
If she hadn't been unwilling to say she saw that box in the closet I would be more open to that possibility. Is there any way you can explain why she refused? As a result, I accept she believed he was with her that night. It just doesn't make sense to me she'd lie about that but not about the box.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2012 15:23:05 GMT -5
What I was getting at is that she was involved whether knowingly or unknowingly. Had Hauptmann been caught immediately after the crime, I'd say the argument for her involvement would be radically different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 12:59:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 10, 2019 22:07:48 GMT -5
great find, Amy! Mannfred looks so much like Richard.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 27, 2022 20:45:46 GMT -5
It's been a few years since I've read books about the kidnapping, but if my memory serves me right. Wasn't it that the night was a Tuesday night that jogged Annas memory of what her and Richard did, not the date of March 1st?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2022 13:49:07 GMT -5
It's been a few years since I've read books about the kidnapping, but if my memory serves me right. Wasn't it that the night was a Tuesday night that jogged Annas memory of what her and Richard did, not the date of March 1st? Hi Kris. There are multiple sources concerning this topic. Since Jim Fisher uses the Bronx trial I'll quote some of it from the actual transcript: Q. [Fawcett] What makes you remember the 1st of March? What makes you remember that?
A. [Anna] Well, I found out it was on a Tuesday that 1st of March, and there was not a day he would miss on Tuesday, - he had to call for me, and Fridays, because it was late for me to go home and he was there every Tuesday.
Q. And particularly during March of 1932?
A. Well, every Tuesday, no matter when it was, he was there, because I worked late.
Mr. Fawcett: That is all.
Cross Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. [Wilentz] Mrs. Hauptmann, you remember March 1st, because it was a Tuesday?
A. [Anna] Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And every Tuesday, every Tuesday while you worked there during your married life, every Tuesday your husband called for you in the evening?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is why you remember it?
A. Yes.
Q. You do not, of course, remember Tuesday night, March 1st by itself, do you?
A. No, I did not. I found out later on it was a Tuesday.
Q. But when you were told it was a Tuesday night, of course, you immediately concluded that he must have called for you that night?
A. Yes, he did call for me.
|
|
|
Post by Eoppen on Oct 3, 2023 1:10:01 GMT -5
One thing that makes me think that Anna was complicit in the whole thing from the beginning is that we've never found anybody else involved. BRH was a traditional German husband, which meant that he did not do infant or child care. That was Anna's job.
I don't think for a second that BRH wanted Charles jr. to die. While he wasn't the sharpest <i>Pickelhaube</i> in the <i>Reichswehr,</i> he had to know that if the child died, he was looking right straight at the electric chair. But that brings up the question of what he was going to <i>do</i> with the little guy. That would be where Anna came in.
The Hauptmanns had a boy of their own of nearly the same age. As long as nobody saw the two children together, the Hauptmanns could keep little Charles jr. safe until it was time to hand him back, and nobody need be the wiser. Anna had the skills and know-how to take care of him, which BRH lacked.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 3, 2023 11:27:10 GMT -5
One thing that makes me think that Anna was complicit in the whole thing from the beginning is that we've never found anybody else involved. BRH was a traditional German husband, which meant that he did not do infant or child care. That was Anna's job. I don't think for a second that BRH wanted Charles jr. to die. While he wasn't the sharpest <i>Pickelhaube</i> in the <i>Reichswehr,</i> he had to know that if the child died, he was looking right straight at the electric chair. But that brings up the question of what he was going to <i>do</i> with the little guy. That would be where Anna came in. The Hauptmanns had a boy of their own of nearly the same age. As long as nobody saw the two children together, the Hauptmanns could keep little Charles jr. safe until it was time to hand him back, and nobody need be the wiser. Anna had the skills and know-how to take care of him, which BRH lacked. First of all, Anna fought tirelessly for the rest of her life for her husband's innocence. I just don't think she had any idea of his culpability. Also, all of this assumes this kidnapping was genuine, which many do not.
|
|
|
Post by Eoppen on Oct 3, 2023 13:45:14 GMT -5
Anna was ferociously loyal to her chosen man and would have gone along with him on anything. Her fight for his exoneration does not eliminate the possibility or probability that she was in on the kidnapping.
She'd have to have been blind and deaf and dumb not to notice that all of a sudden, despite not having worked, they had money to spend. Enough for luxuries, and a trip to Germany for her.
If you're going to use post-crime behavior as evidence, how about Anne Morrow Lindbergh? At no time did she ever say a thing that would have pointed to anything but a kidnapping. She never accused Charles, or Elisabeth, or the servants of any shred of complicity. Why is her behavior and word worth less than Anna's?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 3, 2023 16:23:55 GMT -5
Anna was ferociously loyal to her chosen man and would have gone along with him on anything. Her fight for his exoneration does not eliminate the possibility or probability that she was in on the kidnapping. She'd have to have been blind and deaf and dumb not to notice that all of a sudden, despite not having worked, they had money to spend. Enough for luxuries, and a trip to Germany for her. If you're going to use post-crime behavior as evidence, how about Anne Morrow Lindbergh? At no time did she ever say a thing that would have pointed to anything but a kidnapping. She never accused Charles, or Elisabeth, or the servants of any shred of complicity. Why is her behavior and word worth less than Anna's? Sorry but that's just not true. Anna had multiple opportunities to fib or outright lie which would have easily helped her husband - including saying she saw Fisch give him a shoebox or say she saw the shoebox in the closet. Assuming she was involved or knew of her husband's culpability, why wouldn't she aided her husband by telling a simple lie? Instead she stood firm in her positions and stories, even when they harmed her husbands case. This, to me, points clearly towards her factual innocence. I'm not sure what you mean. You're doubting Anna's behavior for some reason, but believing Anne's? Why believe one and not the other. In terms of it being an actual kidnapping, Charles Lindbergh's behavior is highly suspect and even many of those on the scene at the time believed he was involved. AML perhaps didn't know about the situation or believed that the child was going to be cared for and the people hired to execute the removal went rogue. She also likely feared her husband or dared not go against him. Many reasons here.
|
|