kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2006 12:16:59 GMT -5
How is it with all the people brought up as possible accomplices, Hans Kloppenberg seems to fly under the radar? Was he ever considered or investigated?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2006 18:08:35 GMT -5
He was immediately picked up by Agent Leslie, Det. Wallace, NYPD, and Cpl Horn, NJSP and brought him to the 2nd precinct where he was questioned by Insp. Lyons at length. His room was searched on 9-28. The Berlin Police were contacted and his records were searched there and it was discovered that he had an impeccable reputation. He was threatened to be named an accomplice later.... let me post his own words: I remember so very well, how I to Wilentz said, that I would swear that I. Fisch the shoe box brought to you. To that meant Wilentz that I of that testimony alone could be arrested.(From letter to Anna Aug '35)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2006 8:33:36 GMT -5
So I am assuming that you feel he is uninvolved? I just have a feeling about this guy, I don't know. Everytime I see a pic of BRH I see Kloppy right along side him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2006 9:47:33 GMT -5
I also wonder about Kloppy, like Anna, being one of those individuals who knew much more than they let on.
I think one of the factors in favour of those newly-arrived Germans who were close to Hauptmann and were questioned by police, would have to be any real or perceived language barrier as a means of deflecting potentially-damaging inroads of investigation. We see this time and time again in Hauptmann's responses to investigators' questions.
At the same time, I believe the police were generally loathe to implicate anyone else in light of their almost unanimous conclusion they had the main player and following their days and nights of anger and frustration over Hauptmann's repetetive lies and deception.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2006 21:36:44 GMT -5
I don't think Kloppenburg had anything to do with or had any knowledge of this crime. His nickname in Germany was "Golden Hans" because he was so honest and helpful. We can't forget that Kloppenburg did not like Fisch and it was purely an accident he was there that night to witness the "box" being given to Hauptmann.
I do agree with the two other observations Joe.
Firstly, its hard to know exactly what was a language barrier and what was a game being played. I assume a little bit of both was going on.
Secondly, once it was obvious Hauptmann wasn't going to implicate anyone other then Fisch they really didn't pursue any loose ends in case they produced even more loose ends which could cause the jury to be confused about certain things.
They saw it as a win-win strategy. Hauptmann tells the entire story from front to back or he dies for protecting his Confederates. Either way they were cock-sure his hands were dirty and felt justified no matter what they did.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2006 8:28:04 GMT -5
" Golden Hans" hmm, that sounds like an invitation to investigate. Joe and Michael make a good point about the translation problems and the desire to concentrate on one target ( "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"). I think there is another factor involved with this case as well and I would call it the "polarizing effect". This case seems to drive people into opposing camps, one of which maintains the status quo at all costs ( Hauptmann is the kidnapper end of story) the other rejects the entire investigation and trial as a hoax. Now there is a third option which falls somewhere in between those two extremes. What I find interesting and somewhat frustrating is that both extreme sides for different reasons leave out of their consideration as suspects people like Kloppenberg. Instead of searching far and wide for suspects I would prefer to stay in Hauptmann's back yard beer garden.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2006 8:53:18 GMT -5
I honestly believe Governor Hoffman was in this 3rd category. Many people believe he thought Hauptmann was completely innocent or that his move was totally political but I would have to disagree. In his mind there were more people involved and he felt executing the one man who might know the answers to all of the questions was a very bad idea. He wanted everyone who had anything to do with the crime brought to justice.
No harm in investigating Kloppenburg but I think you'll see its a dead end as it involves him directly. Your observation concerning the beer garden is interesting. If you intend to pursue this angle let me know and as I re-index my Hauptmann files I will pull out what I find for you.
My primary focus would be on Hans Mueller, and a secondary of Ernest Schoeffler.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2006 9:19:34 GMT -5
You know more about this than me, so I do value your judgement. I don't mean to target Kloppenberg as he may be as clean as you say. It just seems like there is a group of people surrounding Hauptmann who somehow escape the scrutiny that others have been subjected to.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 4, 2006 10:47:13 GMT -5
Keep in mind if Hauptmann was the major player most think he is imagine how consumed he would be in mind, thought, and even physically. It appears to me there is no out of the ordinary peculiars that allowd his friends to be suspicious something is going on.
Certainly the handwriting similarity and rail 16 points to Hauptmann being engulfed in the crime. But if you can stand back a bit and take a doubter's eye of the crime you can come up with a strong assumption the crux of the crime could have taken part within the Lindbergh circle. Hauptmann had no way of knowing the details of who is where . To climb the ladder and not know what lay ahead of him in my opinion tells me the kidnapper did have knowledge that only an insider or one of close association would have. The thumbguard discovery which I believe is an important clue is nearly impossible for a featherbed Lane intruder to leave. No finger prints found. Lack of mud at the crime scene. And yes Violet Sharp's death and the blink of her eye that she would be cool enough not to give in. I believe the catalyst of most events started at the High Fields or the Englewood estate. Its my opinion the German connection of the extortion involved someone who knew what was going down and wanted to take advantage and perhaps one or two were able to be part of both mixes (enter Hauptmann somewhere in this scenario).
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 4, 2006 11:16:58 GMT -5
gary have you ever considered the Junges? they are insiders, Germans and have a geographic connection to the table. They also were Red Johnsons only alibi and he theirs. they lived in the same rooming house were johnson and ellerson resided. the note on the table says the writer was wealthy and from hamburg and this describes mr. junge
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 4, 2006 11:55:46 GMT -5
Yes.... Also considered The Graeme's. Please note reference in "Loss of Eden" chapter 16. Many could be's here. Mrs Graeme had several run ins with Anne.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2006 12:36:53 GMT -5
"Keep in mind if Hauptmann was the major player most think he is imagine how consumed he would be in mind, thought, and even physically. It appears to me there is no out of the ordinary peculiars that allowd his friends to be suspicious something is going on."
Gary, I think I understand your point here and that is why my suspicions toward the circle surrounding Hauptmann are heightened.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2006 7:24:50 GMT -5
I am still bothered by Kloppenberg's testimony regarding the "package" brought to Hauptmann's apartment by Fisch. Was he rehearsed or coached to repeat the ransom "packet" dimensions? I know he was not allowed to say shoe box, but still his description of the package seems more than coincidental to me. In fact that whole shoe box story seems Fischy. I still don't see the need for such a box to hold the amount Hauptmann claimed it contained. And I really don't see the wet box leaking money as BRH claimed. So I wonder was Kloppenberg helping out his Friend, telling the truth, or was he an accomplice? RAB's excellent research and findings relating to the order of the bills spent adds more importance to this whole issue.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2006 5:44:01 GMT -5
Kevin,
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this. To me there's only (3) conclusions:
1. He lied.
2. Since he had been threatened with arrest if he said it was a shoe box then he gave its dimensions instead.
3. The Defense Team asked him if these dimensions fit the size of the box he saw and then asked him to testify to it when he agreed they did.
I think #3 is my personal favorite. Did I miss any options?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 7:38:13 GMT -5
Michael, I guess all three work. Was there any specific elaboration on the supposed shoe box given by Hauptmann? Also I have several versions of this box , one that it was only tied with string, and the other it was wrapped in brown paper and tied with string. Was the any claim by Hauptmann or Kloppenberg as to any print or advertising on this box ? The problem I have with Kloppenberg's testimony is related to these questions. If, for example, the box was wrapped in paper, how or why would kloppenberg say it was a shoe box in the first place? If it was a shoe box would it not have some design or logo on it that Kloppenberg could recall? He is being remarkably precise in his recollection of the dimensions which happen to be the famous "packet" dimensions as well. Was that a defense strategy to link Fisch to the ransom note?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2006 21:22:25 GMT -5
Kevin,
I have been searching my files for information concerning this. Hauptmann right from jump-street is calling it a "shoe-box." I found something interesting in Fisher's notes recorded from his conversation with Hauptmann. Hauptmann was telling him in December that Kloppenberg saw Fisch with the box under his arm that night but wasn't sure if Hans would remember it....
Still looking for more.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 21:30:29 GMT -5
I think Rab's excellent research on the order in which the bills were spent certainly adds another question to the whole "shoe box" theory.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2006 22:04:06 GMT -5
Agreed, and the critical point as Rab points out, is the fact that Hauptmann admitted to separating and individually drying out the bills, which would have removed them from their originally packed order.
It would seem Wilentz lost out on a grand opportunity when he talked about Hauptmann taking the bills down to the garage from the kitchen closet. Had he connected the original order of bills to the spending pattern from early 1934 and later to August, it would have been very compelling to suggest Hauptmann's story of the discovery of the shoe box was as wet as he claimed the box had been.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2006 5:30:29 GMT -5
I still have some issues to get through though. I believe Fisch did give him a box and I do believe it contained Lindbergh ransom money. I do think Hauptmann was lying when he said he hadn't looked in it until 4 weeks before his arrest, however I still can't understand his actions in seeking more money with Uhlig by going around looking for furs and prompting people to open his security deposit box.
There is evidence of a leak that existed in this closet and evidence the bills found in Hauptmann's garage had been wet. Had Hauptmann taken wet bills and placed them in the basket to dry then counted them? If so, by the very nature of this act, I say bills could not have retained their packing order sequence.
I have to review Rab's position here again to refresh my memory as well as my previous points. I am light years ahead of where I once was so maybe I have new points or - none at all.
Kevin,
Where are you seeing the box described with string? Is this in the trial transcripts?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 8, 2006 7:58:46 GMT -5
michael i would think the wet bills would have torn if they weren't dried out some. rings true to me
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2006 8:42:54 GMT -5
When you couple the impossibility of hitting that box on the top shelf with a mop handle with the sequential spending pattern of the money, this shoe box story falls apart, literally. And why on earth would he take the money to an unheated and damp garage to dry out when he had a nice dry attic right there? Would anyone do that? Of course, one would first have yo ask why not just dry out the bills in the apartment, especially if we are talking about an innocent man who has no idea of the origin of these bills. Would anyone not share this amazing discovery with their spouse and close freinds?This version by Hauptmann is becoming impossible to believe. Michael, I believe that it was Hauptmann's explanation to the police, after the arrest and money discovery, regarding his "discovery" of the box where he describes it as tied and wrapped. But that version changes slightly depending on which source are reading. If the box was untied and un-wrapped would it be believable that Richard or Anna would never have had the natural curiosity to peek at the contents? Wouldn't be natural to see if the contents were stored in an appropriate location and that they would not perish?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2006 21:46:04 GMT -5
When Fisch handed Hauptmann a bunch of box's and told him to put them into the garage but then handed him "this little box" and said "keep this in a dry place" I am quite sure Hauptmann would have wanted to know what was in it.
I believe he knew exactly what was even before hand.
The story of the box being "re-discovered" by the accidental "broom incident" is too much for me to buy into. It even sounds made up.
Now honestly....I wouldn't share such a discovery with anyone - but that's me. Especially if I am someone who would 'steal' and knew this was 'dirty money.'
But we have evidence of this money being wet at one time, and evidence that certain bills which were passed as smelling moldy from being wet. So the natural question is: was this from being in the closet or being in the bowl found in the garage floor? And did Hauptmann tell the truth concerning how he dried these bills out?
Were the bills found in the block of wood the "first to have dried" as Hauptmann told Police? If not why would he make up this piece of information?
How would Hauptmann "dry out" these wet notes without taking them apart from their bundles? How would he re-assemble them back into their original packing order? Why would he want to?
If Hauptmann had this money during his trip to Florida, where did he keep it? Shussler had access to both his apartment and his garage but Hauptmann did not seem to have a problem with this at all. There's no evidence he spent any of it on the trip....there's even some evidence he was being frugal.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2006 22:17:24 GMT -5
I am a little unclear as to the wet notes reference. I know I have read that some notes recovered had a musty odor to them. Of the notes recovered from the garage ,was there evidence that they had been wet at one time? Were those notes wrapped in newspaper found to be in sequence or were they mixed up?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2006 20:01:16 GMT -5
The bills found in Hauptmann's garage prove there was some separation of those notes. We have the money found in the block of wood and those found in the packages in the can. I take note of Rab's research concerning page 49...If we examine the 29 bills listed in the packing order we find: The first six bills listed on that page were found among the $13,760 found on 9-20-34 in (14) separate packages wrapped in newspaper in Hauptmann's garage. The next 10 were found to have been passed (see Rab's research) . lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141576043The next 13 were found in on 9-25-34 in the bored out holes made in the block of wood hidden in Hauptmann's garage. So yes we see the packing order is spent in consecutive bills and the discovery seems to suggest they were probably spent in order. However, the fact these bills have been separated within the packing order while in Hauptmann's custody seems a bit odd and contradictory to the Rab's theory. To me, Hauptmann isn't going to spend those bills he has wrapped up but those unwrapped and easily accessible. So let's look at page 48: The serial numbers of the first (8) bills are found on 9-20-34 in Hauptmann's garage wrapped in newspaper. The serial numbers of the next (5) bills are found on 9-25-34 in the wooden block. The 14th bill was discovered on 9-17-34 traced to Manufactures Trust Co. The next (7) bills are found on 9-25-34 in the block of wood. The 22nd bill on the page was discovered on Aug. 28th, 1934 traced to National City Bank. The remaining (7) bills were among those found in Hauptmann's garage on 9-25-34 in the block of wood. So I think this supports my supposition concerning the block of wood containing ransom money and Hauptmann's spending them, however, it doesn't seem to support this idea Hauptmann is spending them purposely in the packing order. What this does for me is suggest that if Hauptmann is the one who spent the 10 consecutive bills on page 49, these bills were in the block of wood as was the 14th and 22nd bills on page 48. Now what Rab's research does seem to show is that Hauptmann has started spending ransom money sometime in December 1933. Fisch was on the S.S. Manhattan on December 6, 1933 so it doesn't disprove Fisch giving Hauptmann a box of ransom money - just that Hauptmann lied about "when" he discovered it - if of course the "Fisch story" is true and those bills found traced back to December weren't spent by Fisch just prior to his departure. Here's some more to consider..... While I will have to try and locate my source for the "musty" bills, I know that prior to the bills that were traced back to Hauptmann, some of those other bills showed things like womens makeup, lipstick, and brass particles on them. Also, if we look at the order in which the $5 ransom bills were recovered and check these against the packing order - it shows they were not being spent in order. 1st = 33rd bill on page 2 2nd = 46th bill on page 13 3rd = 4th bill on page 8 4th = 16th bill on page 37 etc. So if Hauptmann did have the tendency to spend the bills in the order in which they were arranged in the stack, then he certainly wasn't spending the $5's - or - this tendency arose out of need and/or for some other unknown reason.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2006 17:45:14 GMT -5
That's really interesting Michael. What do you think it means? I was looking at the ransom payoff and the ransom box replica and a thought occurred to me regarding the issue of how many people were involved in this crime. Given that Hauptmann specified the size of the packet and he was pretty accurate in the size to contain the quantity of bills specified, I reasoned that there may have been a reason for the breakdown of bills demanded. After all , if you are being specific in your demand for the amount of each denomination there may be a reason. One possibility is to facilitate distribution to all involved. If we take both the initial ($50,000)and revised ($70,000) demand and look at the breakdown of bills of each denomination we can see if there is a constant divisor. The $10,000 in $5 equals 2000 bills and can be evenly divided by 1, 2,4, & 5. The $15,000 in $10 bills equals 1500 bills and can be evenly divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. For the $25,000 in $20 notes we get 1250 bills which is evenly divided by 1, 2 & 5. And for the $20,000 in $50 bills which was not taken there are 400 bills which can be evenly divided by 1, 2, 4, & 5. So from this there are three divisors that are constant for all 4 denominations, 1, 2, & 5. Now of course this may all mean nothing as you could split the payoff in many more ways simply by mixing denominations or having access to some type of financial institution where you could exchange the notes. But I think it is possible that the specified breakdown of denominations given by the kidnapper(s) could have been determined by the ease of dividing the cash and may have been dictated by the number of those involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2006 15:09:11 GMT -5
I think it shows:
The "wrinkle" in the overall theory.
I think it does show a system that Hauptmann employed, that is, he put the money in the block of wood and was intending on spending this amount first.
The amount in the block to start with was probably important.
The gun being there was probably there for a reason. It's interesting to note it wasn't with Hauptmann when he was arrested.
The "tie-in" with the June 10th '33 event doesn't look as good (to me) with this additional information.
The basic "Fisch Story" could be still be true, that is, Fisch did give Hauptmann this box of money when Hauptmann claimed he did.
It could show evidence of more then one person spending ransom money.
+++++
I like the way you are thinking Kevin. I always simply assumed the money may have been divided according to the level of work performed. Perhaps (1) getting $10,000, someone else getting $25,000, etc. I've never considered as you are now and its an interesting angle to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 12, 2006 6:14:04 GMT -5
"So yes we see the packing order is spent in consecutive bills and the discovery seems to suggest they were probably spent in order."
It is not just the discovery but the investigations as to when the bill was originally passed that are important. They show that the bills were passed in that order. One couldn't rely just on the discovery dates because the Giordano bill throws out the sequence because it was found in February. But when traced it was found to have been passed December 26 and Giordano just held onto it until he deposited it to his bank in February.
"However, the fact these bills have been separated within the packing order while in Hauptmann's custody seems a bit odd and contradictory to the Rab's theory."
Not at all and it seems to me that you have completely misunderstood the theory. There is no claim that the entire ransom was spent in order, nor that Hauptmann was deliberately spending it in order nor that the entire ransom cache remained in its original order. You will see from the original discussions on LindyKidnap that I am at pains to point this out.
What is clear is that pockets of the ransom remained in their original order. The $10 gold certificates from late 1933 to August 1934 demonstrate that and that is what destroys the Fisch story. It is impossible to believe that Hauptmann found a cache of ransom money in August 1934 and just happened to pick the next note in sequence to those passed in December/January. Because, remember, by the time the first notes in the sequence had been passed, Fisch was already in Germany.
What is clear is that the Fisch story as Hauptmann formulated it was a lie.
"...however, it doesn't seem to support this idea Hauptmann is spending them purposely in the packing order."
No claim has ever been made to that effect. There is no claim of intent from me, merely that parts of the ransom remained in the original order. One can see the same in the Faulkner exchange. Much of it is in the original order, some is not.
"What this does for me is suggest that if Hauptmann is the one who spent the 10 consecutive bills on page 49, these bills were in the block of wood as was the 14th and 22nd bills on page 48."
Perhaps but I'm not sure it really matters. What is clear is that Hauptmann passed all of those bills.
"Now what Rab's research does seem to show is that Hauptmann has started spending ransom money sometime in December 1933."
Of course we know he was spending money far in advance of that. He had huge unexplained enrichment that started in April 1932. We have the Barr incident and while he identification at the trial should naturally be viewed with reserve, the description she gave at the time matches Hauptmann and there is the synchronicity of it being his birthday, which as I've posted in the past is meaningful in my opinion.
"Fisch was on the S.S. Manhattan on December 6, 1933 so it doesn't disprove Fisch giving Hauptmann a box of ransom money - just that Hauptmann lied about "when" he discovered it..."
But that is not the Fisch story. That is your story. Hauptmann's story is clearly a pack of lies. I think it somewhat desperate to cling onto the notion of Fisch giving Hauptmann the money in December when it is clear that Hauptmann had unexplained enrichment for the previous 18 months or so and was also clearly using the Mt Vernon account to deposit the results of laundering i.e. coins.
"While I will have to try and locate my source for the "musty" bills, I know that prior to the bills that were traced back to Hauptmann, some of those other bills showed things like womens makeup, lipstick, and brass particles on them."
I have posted in the past that this is completely meaningless. Firstly, not every bill was analysed and thus we don't know if this was a pattern or not. Secondly, the bills were already used before being assembled in the ransom so we don't know if these residues were on the bills when the ransom was handed to CJ because there was no prior analysis. Thus there is no control sample. Thirdly, we don't have an analysis of notes generally in circulation which would provide an additional control sample. So all in all the fact that a small number of bills were tested and revealed certain characteristics is of no importance because we have nothing against which to compare it.
"Also, if we look at the order in which the $5 ransom bills were recovered and check these against the packing order - it shows they were not being spent in order."
Again this is totally meaningless. If one is to understand the nature of the ransom money spending, one must not compare apples to oranges. The $5 bills remained in circulation for many months and even a cursory examination of the investigative reports on them will show that the vast majority could not be traced to anything that appeared to be an initial passing. The gold certificates post-May 1933 were a completely different matter. They didn't circulate in the economy and were noticed more easily so they were far more likely to be traced to the original passing, as we can see from the reports. One cannot compare the $5 bills to the $10 gold certificates.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2006 10:21:36 GMT -5
As you know, I tend to look for possibilities which may or could upset the line of thinking - if they indeed exist.
Your point about the gold notes and their inability to stay circulated is duly noted and very important as you have reminded us. This does seem to rule out the possibility that Fisch may have spent those notes which turned up in December, and we see Hauptmann spending those later 10's himself .... so why the time cut-off within Hauptmann's story? It certainly doesn't make him look "less guilty" regardless of when he opened that box - quite the opposite - it both sounds and shows (like) a lie. My guess is it has to do with method... He seems to be admitting to the bills he knows they will know about as it directly concerns him.
I do believe there is a very good possibility that Fisch did give Hauptmann a box with $15,000 of ransom money. I still say its important to note that Hauptmann is spending the money in the block of wood first and that by the time the Police arrest him there is $840.00 in 10's there. My guess is that it started with $1000. The $20 found in his wallet is an exception to this rule - or is it? Could he have been laundering the $20's differently then the $10's?
I think this is very important. If we can show how or why it could lead us to nail down the system and/or course of events which I believe will show absolutely there were others involved.
The unexplained enrichment doesn't prove (to me) that Hauptmann is the one spending ransom then. He could be benefiting by it as well as other sources but it doesn't necessarily show he is the one actually spending the (ransom) money.
As far as the bill analysis... I generally agree with what you say. In August of '34 the FBI Lab did an anaylsis of $4,690 of the ransom. A monumental task to say the least and they obviously thought there was some value of undertaking it so I hesitate to say its totally meaningless.
As for the packing list $5's...
I agree with you here excepting that we have the beginning date of 4-2-32 and we do have a rough ending date for these $5's.
The dates of the $5's in the order in which I listed them are traced to these dates:
1. 4-13-32 2. 5-17-32 3. 5-18-32 4. 5-18-32
So I say if we look at these dates in conjunction with when we believe all the $5's have been spent (exhausted originally) and it looks as though these $5's aren't being spent in the packing list order.
Please don't hesistate (anyone) to point out where you think my reasoning is flawed in this post.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2006 11:30:28 GMT -5
Rab's analysis of the pattern of ordered gold certificate spending is compelling and convinces me Hauptmann was at least one of the bill passers from December 1933 and on. To add to this, it seems though to indicate a step change from the pre-December 26 spending pattern itself, ie. possibly a new source and thus, type of bill and sequence of numbers. It also seems to me a reasonable possibility that Fisch had left with Hauptmann, a large number of the higher risk gold certificates, which he had been unable to dispose of himself before departing for Germany. Because Fisch and Hauptmann were friends and business partners, (and I believe both involved in the kidnapping from Day One) Hauptmann would certainly be a preferred choice for safeguarding the notes. I wonder too if the $7500 Hauptmann claimed Fisch owed him, was essentially payment at a rate of 50 cents on the dollar, for the approximately $15,000 left to him. I realize Hauptmann's Fisch story as categorically stated and relative to the timing of the find, is all wet, but he certainly had a knack for improv. Allow me to engage in a bit of theory here. I realize that not all of these points are proven, but the sequence of events themselves may lend towards additional discussion and something firmer in conclusion. Hauptmann had originally been given a box by Fisch, knowing full well what was inside and had dipped into it shortly after Fisch sailed. But the risk in doing so would have been very high (as exemplified by the Austin, Cross and Ireland incident?) and he would have been continually searching his mind for any way to minimize this risk so that he could return to his previous standard of living. The rainy Sunday, August 1934 afternoon would have been noted and the connection between this day and the leaky closet made. This would have then represented the needed turning point and means to justify in his own mind, the stepped-up campaign of gold note spending undertaken in August / September.
Hauptmann's outburst in Flemington towards Sisk's testimony about the money being originally hidden in the crock may be very relevant. If Hauptmann had first placed the money in the crock and buried it under the garage floorboards, he would have kept out enough for current expenses. Eventually though, he would have had to return to the crock, perhaps after a number of months without having seen the condition of the money.
The same August 1934 rainstorm noted by Hauptmann as part of the Fisch story, might also have led him to permanently remove the money from the crock, for now it was wet and moldy and would need to be dried. Could this and/or other previous rainstorms have led to the condition of the crock, as noted by the investigators who dug it up? As I recall, Hauptmann never had a satisfactory explanation for that crock. But then, if the money in the crock had been wet and in need of drying out, this would still require the individual bills to be separated and thus the sequence of bills upset.So where does this all go? I'm not sure now ... but it has me thinking a lot more about what Hauptmann knew, when he knew it and where he put it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 12, 2006 13:20:19 GMT -5
"Because Fisch and Hauptmann were friends and business partners, (and I believe both involved in the kidnapping from Day One) "
Joe, I know this makes great sense but I just have a problem with Fisch and Hauptmann as partners in the kidnapping. I can see Fisch as a money launderer, but I just don't see him as an active participant in the murder/ kidnap. I also don't see Hauptmann teamed up with him in the commission of the crime. I may be wrong here, I just picture Hauptmann with someone a lot more action minded and capable, perhaps even with Hopewell area resources. I think it would be someone whom Hauptmann would have a much stronger bond with.
|
|