jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 1, 2010 3:32:32 GMT -5
So Anna goes back to Germany in 1934 after not working since December of 1932. Since that time she's had some trips to California, etc. Where is their son Manfred when she goes to Germany? He's supposedly two when BRH is arrested. Did she take Manfred to Germany? No wonder Manfred never wants to talk about it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 1, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 1, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -5
Did Anna have an affair while in Germany? Is Manfred Hitler's son?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 8:09:29 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2010 8:09:29 GMT -5
Seriously Jack, I have always wondered if some of the unaccounted ransom money ended up in the Fatherland. Is it out of the question to wonder if Anna conveyed some money, perhaps as a bribe toward Richards return?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 17:14:02 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 2, 2010 17:14:02 GMT -5
Popular thought (?) is that's why she went back - to see if Richard could get back into Germany.
Why are all these people wanting to get back into Germany, where others were leaving in droves?
When she came back she told Richard he could go back at end of 1934. I don't know German law, but U.S. would be seven years (Richard had been away from G for about ten). Sounds like Richard had an open-ended warrant which WAS CANCELLED so you could be right. Escape is serious here - probably in Germany too.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 18:33:57 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 2, 2010 18:33:57 GMT -5
Awfully timely that Richard just happened to be apprehended (after several years of doing the same thing?) just a few months before he would have returned to Germany.
If Richard would not have gone into that gas station he probably would never have been caught - then where would the enigma be?
He would have been long gone with the wind and we'd never have heard of Isidor or Gerta or so many interesting peoples.
I'm anxious to see Michael's ultimate take on this but hope I don't have to buy all the copies to make it profitable. I already have too many Jones - anybody need a nice Jones? - plastic librarylike coverage!
As Kevkon says, there are still so many questions - and that's what makes it so interesting a crime.
What I can't buy, and is almost unanswered (except Rita and I tried to) is why Donovan was involved. I mean this guy (Donovan) is not an alley wanderer who happened to stumble in when he saw police cars! And Thayer too - another soon to be very important U.S. intelligence person. I said Holy S three times when I was told about TLC as a kid. First was, the maid committed suicide? Second was this idiot passed bad cash at a gas station where his license is on display. Third was Donovan? What the H was he doing there?
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 19:34:32 GMT -5
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 2, 2010 19:34:32 GMT -5
Awfully timely that Richard just happened to be apprehended (after several years of doing the same thing?) just a few months before he would have returned to Germany. If Richard would not have gone into that gas station he probably would never have been caught - then where would the enigma be? He would have been long gone with the wind and we'd never have heard of Isidor or Gerta or so many interesting peoples. I'm anxious to see Michael's ultimate take on this but hope I don't have to buy all the copies to make it profitable. I already have too many Jones - anybody need a nice Jones? - plastic librarylike coverage! As Kevkon says, there are still so many questions - and that's what makes it so interesting a crime. What I can't buy, and is almost unanswered (except Rita and I tried to) is why Donovan was involved. I mean this guy (Donovan) is not an alley wanderer who happened to stumble in when he saw police cars! And Thayer too - another soon to be very important U.S. intelligence person. I said Holy S three times when I was told about TLC as a kid. First was, the maid committed suicide? Second was this idiot passed bad cash at a gas station where his license is on display. Third was Donovan? What the H was he doing there? That's what I find interesting too. I would bet if we ever knew the whole story, on a lot of levels the crime was pulled off on a more rudimentary level then we would tend to think. On the other hand, bringing Donovan and Thayer into the scene so early is a red flag for me. You don't bring guys like that in to shed light on the investigation. You bring guys like that in to cover things up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 19:48:09 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 2, 2010 19:48:09 GMT -5
Wow - good point rmc and I hadn't considered that. If they were covering something up what was it?
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 21:32:41 GMT -5
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 2, 2010 21:32:41 GMT -5
Wow - good point rmc and I hadn't considered that. If they were covering something up what was it? I don't know. I guess it could depend on which of the 4 Colonels you believe was calling the shots. By all accounts, Lindbergh was calling the shots. But what if Donovan was manipulating Lindbergh into clouding the investigation, which Lindy not being aware of it?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 2, 2010 23:28:55 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 2, 2010 23:28:55 GMT -5
At that time Donovan was a nobody and Thayer was a lawyer. Schwartzkopf was head of police who were mainly highway traffic officers Breckenridge was a prominent attorney. Lindbergh, of course was the most adulated man in the world.
They say Lindbergh took charge of everything from the beginning but then why call Breckenridge?
And who called Donovan and Thayer, though T was working for another at the time.
The big Q always comes down to Donovan - there is absolutely no reason for him to be there - especially as is always assumed, Charles is captain of the ship. So for Lindbergh to be running the show from the beginning he had plenty of cohorts.
It really makes more sense for the U.S. Government to see this a possible international issue from the beginning (which perhaps it was) and make sure their own man (Donovan - soon to be head of OSS) was on board. Then perhaps Donovan was really calling the shots (the wait to open the note, etc.) and some things can be better explained. All the Rosner business was really just a stall to check foreign relations. When the actual kidnapper came along he was watched - Breckenridge even moved into Condon's house. They knew who got the cash at St. Raymonds but really didn't care - as long as it wasn't one of their baddies it was off the books. Finally Finn and the NYPD goof everything up by catching the guy and so he's hastily prosecuted and out to dry.
But in the end it was not an international incident - was it intended to be and stopped - or perhaps not even stopped? Charles became about as Nazi as an American could legally be.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 3, 2010 1:24:39 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 3, 2010 1:24:39 GMT -5
I just had a pop-up from some woman who wanted me to give her my credit card numbers and I then could see naked pictures of her and I told her HEY! you give me your credit card numbers and I'll send you naked pictures of me! Havn't heard back.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 3, 2010 2:02:08 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 3, 2010 2:02:08 GMT -5
The Anna timeline is interesting: She quits work in December of 1932. They go to California with Richard's buddy in 1933 for 4 to 6 months. In 1934 Anna goes to Germany for 6 or so months. Where does Manfred fit in? Manfred is 6 to 8 months old at the time of BRH arrest. Would mean Anna would be pregnent most of 1933. So she travels to Germany while pregnant? Have the baby when she gets back?
She must have been v pregnant during the whole trip.
So baby is conceived roughly end of 1932. That why she quit working?
Sounds kinda like Anne Lindbergh on the Orient Romp with Jon.
Sounds also like Anna is deserting Richard. Were the lovebirds pecking when Anna didn't like Richard sitting around the house? So Anna bails for a while?
To my mind Anna and Richard seemed like very qualified people, but each somewhat headstrong and not sure how they'd do in close quarters.
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 4, 2010 19:20:37 GMT -5
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 4, 2010 19:20:37 GMT -5
Seriously Jack, I have always wondered if some of the unaccounted ransom money ended up in the Fatherland. Is it out of the question to wonder if Anna conveyed some money, perhaps as a bribe toward Richards return? Very interesting. And if there is any truth at all behind that theory, that changes what most people believe about Anna's knowledge of Richard's actions.
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 5, 2010 6:57:12 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2010 6:57:12 GMT -5
It is interesting. But does one thing definitely equal another? What I am saying is that he could absolutely be correct but she may still have had no idea. It depends what the specific facts are surrounding this situation.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 5, 2010 16:10:47 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2010 16:10:47 GMT -5
She very possibly had no idea about their finances and frankly didn't care - hey we're not broke so what the heck. I'm just saying that my personal thought if I were married or living with someone unemployed who suddenly appeared quite wealthy at about the time of a very major unsolved crime I would probably question what was going on - if for no other reason than I didn't want to be indirectly involved.
She may have even been directly involved, but we'll probably never know unless Michael has new information in his book.
What-ifs are really bad news in true crime cases. Detectives use them but mostly they're round filed.
So I'm certainly not gonna what-if Anna - as Kevkon would say, there is no evidence. But there is a lot of evidence to, as Joe says, have solved the crime.
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 5, 2010 16:35:07 GMT -5
Post by wolf2 on Apr 5, 2010 16:35:07 GMT -5
he was telling people at the time, that he was playing the stock market and doing well. im sure he told his wife that
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 5, 2010 16:48:40 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2010 16:48:40 GMT -5
I agree that that's what the perception was, Steve, but the market 29 - 34 was very choosie. Funds lost tons.
So we can assume, I guess that Anna just didn't care as long as there was rent and food and trips and radios.
As I said I'm not gonna what-if Anna.
A while back I accidentalied uponed a Lindbergh site that had supposedly found Betty Gow's lost diary. I bought it some at first and was thinking - at last the smoking gun - soon I could see it was a spoof.
Until Anna's lost diary is found we'll never know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Mar 2, 2014 19:41:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 19:41:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 29, 2014 13:26:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 13:26:41 GMT -5
Michael,
I have been working on a timeline of sorts for Anna. When I first read over Fred Hahn's statement to authorities, he mentions Anna going to Kingston to visit relatives. Although it sounds like he means it is in early 1932, I am not sure that is correct. Did Anna ever go to visit relatives in Kingston during either 1932 or 1933? I have never seen this mentioned in any of the books I have read. If its not a fact, I don't want to add it to my line. Thanks!
|
|
|
Anna
May 1, 2014 19:54:17 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 1, 2014 19:54:17 GMT -5
Michael, I have been working on a timeline of sorts for Anna. When I first read over Fred Hahn's statement to authorities, he mentions Anna going to Kingston to visit relatives. Although it sounds like he means it is in early 1932, I am not sure that is correct. Did Anna ever go to visit relatives in Kingston during either 1932 or 1933? I have never seen this mentioned in any of the books I have read. If its not a fact, I don't want to add it to my line. Thanks! His Statement seems to be referencing what he thinks he remembers Kloppenburg supposedly telling him. I could be wrong but I don't trust it. When Ellis Parker interviewed Anna, he asked her about traveling to New Jersey and in one response she says that in either 1932 or 1933 they went to Freehold for the purpose of visiting Lampe who wasn't there at the time. Here's some more from this interview: Q: Did you ever go to Philadelphia together? A: Oh, yes, many times.
Q: Ever to Trenton? A: I think we went to Trenton. I know the name well, we always said, "This is half way" that is what we always said. We had nobody in New Jersey.
Q: Ever go to Princeton? A: No. I was in Princeton when the trial was on and they said, "There is the University there, or school.
Q: Were you ever to Hopewell? A: I was now.
Q: Before that? A: No.
Q: Richard ever there, do you know? A: No, we had nobody in New Jersey.
|
|
|
Anna
May 1, 2014 20:31:56 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 1, 2014 20:31:56 GMT -5
BTW Amy....
I think what you are doing is a great idea. For what its worth, if you have a source for something and you believe its doubtful, you might still want to include it but put an asterisk next to it which indicates this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
May 2, 2014 16:21:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 16:21:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the good idea Michael. I will do as you suggest and include the information but just indicate it as being unconfirmed.
When Hahn brought up Anna being away in Kingston he tied it to Hauptmann having a leg issue which I thought was in 1933 so perhaps that is when Anna went to Kingston if she did go at all. Was Kloppenburg questioned about what Hahn claims he was told by him? Was Hans asked about Anna's possible trip and Hauptmann's leg issues?
Thank you for posting that portion of Ellis Parker's interview with Anna. I knew that he had talked to Hauptmann but wasn't aware of his interview with Anna. A couple of questions:
Who is Lampe?
Twice Anna says that they had nobody in New Jersey. Would you know if she meant no family relations in New Jersey? After all she is going to visit people in New Jersey in 1932 or 1933 so they know someone there. I know there is a Kingston N. J. not far from Hopewell. There is also a Kingston N.Y. which is what I thought Hahn meant when he said she went to Kingston to see relatives. I believe there is also a Kingston PA. Since Ellis is questioning Anna about N.J. locations I am assuming that he is thinking Kingston N.J. I wonder if Ellis knew that the Whateleys had friends in Kingston NJ.
|
|
|
Anna
May 3, 2014 8:23:40 GMT -5
Post by xjd on May 3, 2014 8:23:40 GMT -5
amy35: I have always felt that Anna had no knowledge of any involvement Hauptmann may have had with the LKC. She seemed to believe whatever he would tell her. For whatever reasons she needed to maintain her faith in him. I wanted to post a link to a letter Anna wrote and released to the press right after the execution of Richard. She would continue to express this same faith in her "Richard" until the day she passed.
i've often wondered if the ardent displays of love and support of notorious men by their widows has more to do with the grief process than their own real thoughts and feelings about their husbands.
for example, i'm sure Anna loved Richard even if she knew he scammed money through various means, fooled around with other women, connived/participated in kidnapping etc. once he's dead and gone there is nothing more she can do for this man she loved except defend him. same with Jacqueline Kennedy and JFK, there he was chasing anything in a skirt, experimenting with drugs while POTUS, almost bringing about WW3 (bay of pigs), but once he's been assassinated she's hell-bent to have him enshrined as a saint.
not saying it's right or wrong, but i've observed that with other people i've known too. my point is i take anything a widow of such men say post-death with a tiny grain of salt. again, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Anna
May 3, 2014 16:12:44 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 3, 2014 16:12:44 GMT -5
When Hahn brought up Anna being away in Kingston he tied it to Hauptmann having a leg issue which I thought was in 1933 so perhaps that is when Anna went to Kingston if she did go at all. Right - Hauptmann was being treated for Varicose Veins in 1933 and on page 10 of Hahn's statement he is saying Kloppenburg told him this in March of 1933. The problem is that during this time Hauptmann was in his usual haunts and wasn't "missed" by anyone else. Next, it makes no sense for Hauptmann to rent an apartment in 1933 simply to get treated, and it seems, to me, that it could be Kloppenburg telling Hahn where the Doctor's office is where Hauptmann was being treated. Since both Anna and Richard were missing during their Florida trip, it could be he is remembering this stretch but attributing it to something else. However, on page 12, he changes the date to March of 1932 where Hauptmann was "missed." Again, Hauptmann was not missed by anyone else, and Anna had been working up to the point of her trip to Germany in the summer of '32. Here he says that Hauptmann had stayed away for about 3 to 4 weeks and that when Henry, Willie, and the "Blind man" came in they told him Hauptmann did not have a leg issue. Firstly, this means they hadn't "missed" him, and next this would have to be in 1932 since Henry (Lampe a.k.a. Lempke) had purchased the Farm in Jackson Mills in the early Fall of 1932 and moved away. Hahn even comments that his Wife told him he was imagining things. So it seems to me he is mis-remembering, and mixing things together - none of which makes any sense when he gets done with it. Was Kloppenburg questioned about what Hahn claims he was told by him? Was Hans asked about Anna's possible trip and Hauptmann's leg issues? He was asked about when Anna was away but his responses concerned only her trip to Germany. All of his questions pre-date Hahn's Statements. However, the "Blind man" (Meyers) was interviewed after but they didn't ask him about it at all. I've seen several names for him. First names: "Hans," "Henrique," and "Henry." Last names: "Lampe," and "Lempke." He was roommates with Willie Dreissinger, and Hans Kloppenburg. It was on his farm that Hauptmann helped build the log cabin and put a roof on the chicken coop. Twice Anna says that they had nobody in New Jersey. Would you know if she meant no family relations in New Jersey? After all she is going to visit people in New Jersey in 1932 or 1933 so they know someone there. That's what I understand it to mean. They had both been to Jackson Mills to visit Lampe, and to Elisabeth to visit Otto Heyne.
|
|
|
Anna
May 4, 2014 9:59:46 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 4, 2014 9:59:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
May 4, 2014 10:26:25 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 10:26:25 GMT -5
I know about Henry Lempke. I didn't realize that Lampe was the man Lempke. Because of various spelling differences it is easy to think that the same person is a different person. This must have been challenging to you when you first started researching this case.
So Henry Lampe/Lempke is the man who Hauptmann and Diebig built the bungalow for in 1924 in Jackson Mills, Lakewood Township. In Kennedy's book on page 74 he mentions a Henry Lempke as one of Hauptmann's friends who would hang out with him at Hunters Island. Kennedy says Lempke is a baker. Is this Lempke the same Lempke with the farm in NJ?
Otto Heyne. I asked you about this man in the Who was thread not too long ago. You mention Otto first came to America in 1925 and that Richard and Otto knew each other in Germany. Kenndey mentions on page 155 that Otto Heyne was from Kamenz just like Hauptmann.
When Otto first came to America in 1925 did he already know that Hauptmann was living in New York? In the Letters thread on this board Rab mentions that there is an Otto living at the home of a Marie Hohlock 98 E. 237th Street in the Bronx in 1932. This is not too far from Hauptmann home on 222nd Street. Is this Otto also Otto Heyne?
|
|
|
Anna
May 4, 2014 11:08:50 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 4, 2014 11:08:50 GMT -5
I know about Henry Lempke. I didn't realize that Lampe was the man Lempke. Because of various spelling differences it is easy to think that the same person is a different person. This must have been challenging to you when you first started researching this case. Believe me, it's still a challenge... So Henry Lampe/Lempke is the man who Hauptmann and Diebig built the bungalow for in 1924 in Jackson Mills, Lakewood Township. Negative. I think you are referring to the job Hauptmann worked on in Lakewood. The Police were confused about this at first too. Lampe didn't move to Jackson Mills until the Fall of 1932, and he had never met Deibig and had no idea who he was. In Kennedy's book on page 74 he mentions a Henry Lempke as one of Hauptmann's friends who would hang out with him at Hunters Island. Kennedy says Lempke is a baker. Is this Lempke the same Lempke with the farm in NJ? That's the same man. He was roommates with Kloppenburg and went occasionally to Hunter's Island with the rest of the crew who frequented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
May 4, 2014 16:22:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 16:22:28 GMT -5
Yes that is the job I was referring to. Both Hauptmann and Deibig worked together on it in 1924. Do you know who they were working for on this job? Were they working for a contractor or a private individual?
Very interesting report. It adds details about the relationship between Hauptmann and Heyne. Hauptmann and Heyne obviously were back to being friends again, this time in America. Heyne talks about the coffee shop Hauptmann invested in with Deibig in the 1920's so this is how he met Deibig. Heyne also says he knows Hans Mueller and Ernst Schoeffler. Is it safe to assume that Heyne also knew Fisch since he was invitied to Fisch's going away party in 1933?
The NJSP begin this report with inquires being made concerning the whereabouts of Albert Deibig. It seems that authorities cannot locate him. Interesting! Did they ever locate Deibig and interview him? Did Deibig go by any other spellings for his name? Just wondering.
Would you know what the Labor Temple is that Heyne mentions in this interview?
|
|
|
Anna
May 5, 2014 17:45:28 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 5, 2014 17:45:28 GMT -5
Yes that is the job I was referring to. Both Hauptmann and Deibig worked together on it in 1924. Do you know who they were working for on this job? Were they working for a contractor or a private individual? During his initial interrogation Hauptmann said he was working for someone who had the job in Lakewood but couldn't remember his name. So he wasn't working for the owner of the house. I could search for the name if you are interested but I don't recall if this person was ever mentioned by name. It's possible but since I don't recall I would definitely have to search through the material. The NJSP begin this report with inquires being made concerning the whereabouts of Albert Deibig. It seems that authorities cannot locate him. Interesting! Did they ever locate Deibig and interview him? There is another variation of his name. I will have to find it and get back to you. He "disappeared" because he and Hauptmann stopped talking. One report said the falling out was due to Hauptmann forcing him to repay the loan by selling him the dinner. The Police took a long time to locate him because he was back in Germany. I don't believe he was ever interviewed. Would you know what the Labor Temple is that Heyne mentions in this interview? I've always believed this was reference to the Carpenter's Union Hall. Of course I could be wrong but it makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Anna
May 5, 2014 18:29:27 GMT -5
Post by Michael on May 5, 2014 18:29:27 GMT -5
Did Deibig go by any other spellings for his name? Just wondering. I've seen his name spelled "Deibisch" in a couple of places. I don't think its an "alias" but simply the Police struggling with spelling concerning how the name is being given to them. I've encountered similar situations all over the place in the files. For example, I was following a line of reports once concerning the "Schlacht" family when they suddenly stopped. Sometime later I found a string of investigations concerning the "Slack" family when, from the content, I could clearly see was actually the back end of the investigation concerning the "Schlacht" family.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Jul 30, 2014 11:36:16 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 11:36:16 GMT -5
Michael, I am aware that PI Julius Braun stayed close to Anna Hauptmann even after Hauptmann had lost his appeals and was subsequently electrocuted in April 1936. I read on this board that Braun was volunteering his services and worked with Gov. Hoffman. I came across a picture of Braun meeting Anna Hauptmann when she and Mannfred returned from a trip to Germany in 1937. Do you know why it was necessary for Anna to have a PI? Was she receiving death threats against herself or Mannfred? How long did Mr. Braun remain by Anna's side? I really think it is wonderful that Gov. Hoffman and Mr. Braun looked after Anna and Mannfred this way. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NY-USA-APHS253212-Hauptmann-Lindber-/0981da25edce449abb375feb2bf40c50/19/0
|
|