|
Post by Rab on Mar 13, 2006 3:34:26 GMT -5
"...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..." Exactly. Is it not obvious? In order for Hauptmann to have constructed the Fisch story he had to have known that there was a gap in the passing of gold certificates from January to August 1934. Otherwise he had no basis to claim he only started spending them in August. The only person who could have known this was the person spending them i.e. Hauptmann. What is clear from analysis of the gold certificates is that whoever was passing them was paying close attention to both the various EOs and PPs regarding gold note hoarding and also to newspaper reports of discoveries. Hence the gaps in passing sprees. Do not forget that the gap in 1934 mirrors a similar gap in 1933, as I have posted previously: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141575600This spending pattern is important in considering Hauptmann's actions overall. "I do believe there is a very good possibility that Fisch did give Hauptmann a box with $15,000 of ransom money." I don't, because there is absolutely no evidence of it and there never has been from 1934 to this day. I think it's one of those sacred cows that people want to cling to. Time to move on. "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?" An excellent question. How he disposed of the $20s remains a mystery, as does the method of laundering overall. It's clear from his actions in 1932 with the Mt Vernon account and the Bank of Manhattan account in August 1934 that making change was certainly one aspect. But I have difficulty believing that this was the method employed overall. "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." There is some tortured logic at play here that I cannot comprehend. As I have pointed out in the past, Hauptmann was the person benefiting from the money ergo he was the one spending it. It's not just the enrichment - it's the timing of it. It started in April 1932 and didn't let up. Who opened the Mt Vernon account and deposited the results of laundering? Hauptmann. Who opened the brokerage accounts? Hauptmann. Who benefited financially? Hauptmann. Who wasn't working? Hauptmann. Who's wife took vacations and wasn't working? Hauptmann's. I don't know how you can ignore that which is obvious. It doesn't mean - as I have pointed out in the past - that he necessarily accounted for all the money but on any balanced assessment it's abundantly clear that he accounted for the vast majority of it. I think you rightly ask Kelvin and others to follow guidelines in their analysis. I'm asking you to do the same here because this is basic forensic accounting using Hauptmann's own records. There is no other answer but that Hauptmann was spending ransom money. But if you choose to not see it, that's up to you. "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." Whether they thought it was of value or not doesn't matter. We can see it's meaningless because we have no controls against which to compare it. "So I say if we look at these dates in conjunction with when we believe all the $5's have been spent...and it looks as though these $5's aren't being spent in the packing list order. " And the point is? Again, let me be crystal clear that I have never stated, nor do I state now, that all of the ransom was passed in packing order, nor that such was ever the intention nor that such was not the intention. My point is merely - and it is self-evident from the analysis - that some pockets were spent in packing list order and thankfully that allows the analysis that has been made. Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2006 9:25:22 GMT -5
I can never understand why the demand for $20 and $50 bills was made if there was not a effective way of laundering them in place. Even if they were not gold notes, such relatively large denominations for that time would attract attention if the purpose in passing them was to make change ( launder) the money. It is equally puzzling to me when I here the response that the large bills facilitated the ransom payoff as it was easier to carry the smaller package they afforded. I mean if you can enter a second story room and carry away a child down a ladder are you really going to be over burdened with say a suitcase full of money? That is why I felt the money breakdown and it's corresponding "packet" size may have been determined by some factor we are as of yet unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2006 18:19:22 GMT -5
Exactly. Is it not obvious? In order for Hauptmann to have constructed the Fisch story he had to have known that there was a gap in the passing of gold certificates from January to August 1934. Otherwise he had no basis to claim he only started spending them in August. The only person who could have known this was the person spending them i.e. Hauptmann.I can never understand why the demand for $20 and $50 bills was made if there was not a effective way of laundering them in place. Even if they were not gold notes, such relatively large denominations for that time would attract attention if the purpose in passing them was to make change ( launder) the money. It is equally puzzling to me when I here the response that the large bills facilitated the ransom payoff as it was easier to carry the smaller package they afforded. I mean if you can enter a second story room and carry away a child down a ladder are you really going to be over burdened with say a suitcase full of money? That is why I felt the money breakdown and it's corresponding "packet" size may have been determined by some factor we are as of yet unaware of.(Rab) ***Do you believe Hauptmann came up with this story previous to his arrest? If not, I think you are giving him too much credit to invent with this story, off the cuff, in order to protect himself against the "gap" in spending. If someone is this good shouldn't they have protected themselves in other ways when it came to much more simplistic implicators? What is clear from analysis of the gold certificates is that whoever was passing them was paying close attention to both the various EOs and PPs regarding gold note hoarding and also to newspaper reports of discoveries. Hence the gaps in passing sprees. Do not forget that the gap in 1934 mirrors a similar gap in 1933, as I have posted previously.... (Rab) ***This may be so but I don't believe it excludes the possibility of more then one person being involved in the process. I don't, because there is absolutely no evidence of it and there never has been from 1934 to this day. I think it's one of those sacred cows that people want to cling to. Time to move on.(Rab) ***It's certainly not a "sacred cow" to me. I simply do not want to dismiss something if there is a chance there is some truth to it. This story strikes me of having a basis of fact. I totally disagree there is no evidence to support this position. 1. Kloppenberg saw this package given to Hauptmann by Fisch. 2. There is no evidence that Hauptmann coordinated this story with Kloppenberg. 3. The police do not find this package but do find the other ones given to Hauptmann by Fisch in his garage. 4. Kloppenberg strikes me as being honest. 5. There was a rainstorm during the time Hauptmann claimed the package got wet. 6. Miller backs up the fact Hauptmann had a leak in that closet during this time. 7. There may be evidence the money got wet. 8. $14,620 is found in Hauptmann's possession after his arrest. 9. On page 73 of Hauptmann's account book we see the following notation: $15,000 Isador account The figure appears to be $17,000 with a 5 superimposed on the 7. This notation appears to indicate that Fisch has given $15,000 into the account minus the $2000 given to him on 11-14-33. The totality of these circumstances (for me) prove there is circumstantial evidence to support Fisch giving Hauptmann a box of money in the neighborhood of $15,000. Now I am not saying it definitely happened but I can't "move on" until I get past these above mentioned items. There is some tortured logic at play here that I cannot comprehend. As I have pointed out in the past, Hauptmann was the person benefiting from the money ergo he was the one spending it. It's not just the enrichment - it's the timing of it. It started in April 1932 and didn't let up. Who opened the Mt Vernon account and deposited the results of laundering? Hauptmann. Who opened the brokerage accounts? Hauptmann. Who benefited financially? Hauptmann. Who wasn't working? Hauptmann. Who's wife took vacations and wasn't working? Hauptmann's. I don't know how you can ignore that which is obvious. (Rab) ***I am not sure I understand exactly what you think I am ignoring.... We aren't looking at anyone else's finances under a microscope. Who else's wife are we examining? None that I know of. I see this crime, in total, as a Conspiracy. There were more then one person involved here so why should I dismiss the possibility of more then one person spending (laundering) ransom? Why does it only have to be BRH who is reading these newspapers and following the EOs? No coordinated efforts are possible? I say they are essential for what happened so successfully to occur. I think you rightly ask Kelvin and others to follow guidelines in their analysis. I'm asking you to do the same here because this is basic forensic accounting using Hauptmann's own records. There is no other answer but that Hauptmann was spending ransom money. But if you choose to not see it, that's up to you. (Rab) ***I simply asked for him to follow the guidelines he demands of others and not to be selective about who they should apply to. I don't think I have ever deviated from this myself. Regardless, I am and have been using Hauptmann's own accounting records to give rise to my speculation here and elsewhere. I have no problem with speculation and I have no problem with you (or anyone else) dissecting and disproving it. I welcome both as I always have - in fact I encourage it. If I have absolutely no basis to suggest what I have then I apologize but as of right now I don't see it that way. I bring it up in order to explain it and not the other way around. And the point is?(Rab) ***I suppose my point is that someone following a pattern may be a different person then someone who is not. However, through our discussion here, it seems it may be the bills and denominations themselves which determined the patterns and not the person(s) spending them.... I can never understand why the demand for $20 and $50 bills was made if there was not a effective way of laundering them in place. Even if they were not gold notes, such relatively large denominations for that time would attract attention if the purpose in passing them was to make change ( launder) the money. (Kevin) ***I agree Kevin but didn't Lindbergh give his word these bills would not be marked? Obviously armed with inside information, after Lindbergh reluctantly gave in, the Kidnappers did act having refused these larger denominations from Condon knowing exactly what you state above. That is why I felt the money breakdown and it's corresponding "packet" size may have been determined by some factor we are as of yet unaware of. (Kevin) ***Agreed. There must have been a "need" for this "packet" otherwise who cares what the money comes in as long as you have the money.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 14, 2006 7:29:00 GMT -5
"Do you believe Hauptmann came up with this story previous to his arrest? If not, I think you are giving him too much credit to invent with this story, off the cuff..."
It didn't have to be off the cuff because he had plenty of time after his arrest lying about not having any more money. It was only when he was presented with the evidence that the money had been found in his garage that the Fisch story appeared. Surely you will have to admit that whatever else Hauptmann was, he was an accomplished liar.
"This may be so [that the passer was playing close attention to the EOs and PPs] but I don't believe it excludes the possibility of more then one person being involved in the process.
I didn't say it did. In fact I have argued previously on LindyKidnap that there were only a handful of touch points required over the course of several years if more than one person was involved in spending the money. We cannot, though, ignore the fact that there were gaps which would have required co-ordination and that no money turned up at all when Hauptmann was on holiday in Florida so if there was more than him passing money, clearly it was co-ordinated with whoever else was involved.
"It's certainly not a "sacred cow" to me. I simply do not want to dismiss something if there is a chance there is some truth to it."
I think that's rather an extreme position and smacks of the "anything is possible" mentality elsewhere. I'm not asking you to dismiss anything, I'm asking you to make an objective evaluation and not to cling onto any shred of evidence no matter how obscure or unlikely. The case that Hauptmann was passing ransom money from April 1932 is clear and nothing has been presented by you or anyone else to offer an alternative explanation for his enrichment, the amount of it, the timing of it, his behaviour with the Mt Vernon account etc etc.
"1. Kloppenberg saw this package given to Hauptmann by Fisch.
2. There is no evidence that Hauptmann coordinated this story with Kloppenberg."
Come on. Kloppenberg is not a reliable source for this and you know it. If we're going to start believing Kloppenberg then let's bring in all the other unreliable witnesses. Are you actually asking me to believe that Kloppenberg wasn't encouraged in this story by Anna and Hauptmann's lawyers?
"3. The police do not find this package but do find the other ones given to Hauptmann by Fisch in his garage."
Irrelevant. The other items were given separately so there's no link. And he stored these in the garage.
"4. Kloppenberg strikes me as being honest."
He strikes me as doing his best for his friend and under cross it was clear he couldn't remember any other detail than this.
"5. There was a rainstorm during the time Hauptmann claimed the package got wet.
6. Miller backs up the fact Hauptmann had a leak in that closet during this time."
All the types of things a good liar like Hauptmann would use to bolster his story. Yes it rained, yes there was a leak. I notice you don't mention that Anna never saw the box there, despite the fact that she used that closet every day.
"The figure appears to be $17,000 with a 5 superimposed on the 7. This notation appears to indicate that Fisch has given $15,000 into the account minus the $2000 given to him on 11-14-33."
I'll have to look at that again but these entries relate to the value of their partnership not cash passing between them i.e. the presumed value of Hauptmann's stock and Fisch's furs (Hauptmann's overstated as he admitted in his testimony and Fisch's mostly imaginary). There are also entries which show the cash transactions in and out of this "account" (i.e. money passed between them) and there is no mention of $15k though the $2k is shown and even amounts for as little as $15.
"The totality of these circumstances (for me) prove there is circumstantial evidence to support Fisch giving Hauptmann a box of money in the neighborhood of $15,000."
Sorry nothing you have suggested even comes close to supporting that claim.
"I am not sure I understand exactly what you think I am ignoring.... We aren't looking at anyone else's finances under a microscope. Who else's wife are we examining? None that I know of. I see this crime, in total, as a Conspiracy."
But that is my point. Follow the money. $50k was paid. Hauptmann benefited to the tune of at least $40k (see my archived posts). That started in April 1932 and continued to his arrest. He laundered money in 1932, that is undeniable from the Mt Vernon account. If Hauptmann accounted for at least $40k then how many others were there in this conspiracy? Not many, in my view, and they couldn't have been major players because Hauptmann had the largest financial benefit. Please address how else he could have done this (without resorting to "he was laundering hot money" when it's baseless and it's clear he had no capital to buy hot money in the first place).
What you are ignoring is accepted forensic accounting practices such as those which put Capone away i.e. he was living beyond his obvious means so therefore had some illegal source of income and in his case wasn't paying tax on it. The same approach is used in many countries today.
Please explain Hauptmann's position in the "conspiracy" given his enrichment of at least $40k from April 1932 to his arrest. How did he fund that lifestyle if not through ransom money? Then we can worry about the others.
"I simply asked for him to follow the guidelines he demands of others and not to be selective about who they should apply to. I don't think I have ever deviated from this myself. "
I think you are in this instance because you are not providing anything from Hauptmann's own accounting records which accounts for his enrichment. If you don't say it was ransom money, then please present a viable alternative supported by some evidence from his records. Otherwise you are simply ignoring what the records clearly show.
"...didn't Lindbergh give his word these bills would not be marked? Obviously armed with inside information, after Lindbergh reluctantly gave in, the Kidnappers did act having refused these larger denominations from Condon knowing exactly what you state above."
On what basis do you say they "refused" the money from Condon. I don't see anything to support that. It was requested in the ransom notes so why would they "refuse" it. This is just speculation, surely.
"There must have been a "need" for this "packet" otherwise who cares what the money comes in as long as you have the money."
I do tend to agree that one doesn't specify a size if it doesn't matter but equally we should be careful of reading too much into it. If we look at the money found in Hauptmann's garage we can see that he didn't have any problem finding inventive ways to hide it.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2006 8:38:35 GMT -5
Michael. Rab has many excellent points and I do give you a lot of credit for challenging someone so astute. There is one aspect to your counter argument in particular which I have heard and never seen explained. That is the idea that Hauptmann's sudden financial turn around in April of 1932 is not due to receiving $50,000 in Lindbergh ransom money. If I were arguing for Hauptmann's defense I would offer a viable explanation for this enrichment and the proof to support it. For example, did Hauptmann get lucky with a stock purchase.? Did his trading methods change radically? There has to be a way to account for his changing financial situation unrelated to ransom money for one to believe him uninvolved with the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2006 19:07:57 GMT -5
There has to be a way to account for his changing financial situation unrelated to ransom money for one to believe him uninvolved with the crime. (Kevin) ***I think you are misunderstanding my position Kevin. I am not posturing a defense for Hauptmann. Rab has many excellent points and I do give you a lot of credit for challenging someone so astute. (Kevin) ***I also don't view this as a challenge to Rab. I am simply raising some issues that I feel are unresolved in order to get where Rab seems to be at. If I can raise an eyebrow concerning just one point, however slight, then I will feel good about voicing my concerns. It's also been my experience these types of discussions have a way of bringing unrealized points out - sometimes only seen by those standing on the side-lines. It didn't have to be off the cuff because he had plenty of time after his arrest lying about not having any more money. It was only when he was presented with the evidence that the money had been found in his garage that the Fisch story appeared. Surely you will have to admit that whatever else Hauptmann was, he was an accomplished liar. (Rab) ***Ok. So I assume you to suspect Hauptmann was formulating this explanation in case the Police found the money - am I correct? If so, why isn't he formulating other explanations for items, for example, such as Condon's address written inside of the closet? Surely this explanation lacks the intelligence and design we would have to accept if your position is correct. And yes of course I know Hauptmann lied about things but he also told the truth. My position hinges on the possibility of this story being the combination of the two and there would be value in knowing what exactly is true and what exactly was a lie. We cannot, though, ignore the fact that there were gaps which would have required co-ordination and that no money turned up at all when Hauptmann was on holiday in Florida so if there was more than him passing money, clearly it was co-ordinated with whoever else was involved. (Rab) ***I agree. I also don't want to ignore anything.... Your example is a perfect reflection of this. Why didn't any ransom turn up? Wouldn't this have been a golden opportunity to spend the ransom money without detection? Where exactly was the money during this trip? It does imply (to me) that Hauptmann is involved in the process at this point. I think you are getting defensive supposing I hold a position that he wasn't. As a Confederate, I certainly wouldn't have allowed Hauptmann to take the ransom with him - if he did I wouldn't expect he'd ever return. If you are one of the Confederates, would you trust Hauptmann taking off to Florida with the entire ransom stash? Solo operation - yes - it went with him and he laundered as much as he could - joint operation - no - the course of action is on hold until he gets back. I have suspected for some time now this may not have just been a "vacation." This could be another possible explanation for the "gaps" you've found, that is, anytime someone involved leaves the operation is put on hold. Speculation? Yes, but in the absence of anything solid we must speculate. I think that's rather an extreme position and smacks of the "anything is possible" mentality elsewhere. I'm not asking you to dismiss anything, I'm asking you to make an objective evaluation and not to cling onto any shred of evidence no matter how obscure or unlikely. (Rab) ***I don't think I am doing what you claim I am. The case that Hauptmann was passing ransom money from April 1932 is clear and nothing has been presented by you or anyone else to offer an alternative explanation for his enrichment, the amount of it, the timing of it, his behaviour with the Mt Vernon account etc etc. (Rab) ***I thought we were talking "Fisch Story?" This would be a different discussion altogether. Come on. Kloppenberg is not a reliable source for this and you know it. If we're going to start believing Kloppenberg then let's bring in all the other unreliable witnesses. Are you actually asking me to believe that Kloppenberg wasn't encouraged in this story by Anna and Hauptmann's lawyers? (Rab) ***I believe he was. Of course I expect an attempt by the Defense to groom him but I don't see him lying. No, I don't believe Anna tried to influence him. Irrelevant. The other items were given separately so there's no link. And he stored these in the garage. (Rab) ***Exactly why it isn't irrelevant if what Kloppenberg said was true. Of course this box may have had a gun in it for all we know but it shows a different package other then what is discovered was passed to Hauptmann by Fisch and unaccounted for by the Police - something which would need to be true if Fisch handed over a box of ransom money to Hauptmann. All the types of things a good liar like Hauptmann would use to bolster his story. Yes it rained, yes there was a leak. I notice you don't mention that Anna never saw the box there, despite the fact that she used that closet every day. (Rab) ***Not so good when it comes to other things though...why is this do you think? And no - I didn't mention that Anna said she never saw it and neither did you when you suggested she influenced Kloppenberg to say he did. That to me is contradiction. I'll have to look at that again but these entries relate to the value of their partnership not cash passing between them i.e. the presumed value of Hauptmann's stock and Fisch's furs (Hauptmann's overstated as he admitted in his testimony and Fisch's mostly imaginary). There are also entries which show the cash transactions in and out of this "account" (i.e. money passed between them) and there is no mention of $15k though the $2k is shown and even amounts for as little as $15. (Rab) ***Please look again because there is something to this. I believe you are assuming something here based upon the testimony of a, how did you put it, "an accomplished liar." I have the entire book so I know what's there. Sorry nothing you have suggested even comes close to supporting that claim. (Rab) ***I accept your opinion but I have to disagree. Special Agent Frank seems to consider both of our points on equal ground: It might be that the $15,000 entry on on page 73 is intended to represent Fisch's interest in the furs, or it might represent the $14,600 in ransom money found by police in Hauptmann's garage and which he claims Fisch left with him for safekeeping when he sailed for Germany. Both these possibilities are mere guesses and the fact remains that the $15,000 does not appear in an identifiable form in any of Hauptmann's accounts, or if it is the cash deposited in the brokerage accounts as Hauptmann claims it is, it then means that Hauptmann owed Fisch that amount, instead of Fisch owing him $7,000. +++ But that is my point. Follow the money. $50k was paid. Hauptmann benefited to the tune of at least $40k (see my archived posts). That started in April 1932 and continued to his arrest. He laundered money in 1932, that is undeniable from the Mt Vernon account. If Hauptmann accounted for at least $40k then how many others were there in this conspiracy? Not many, in my view, and they couldn't have been major players because Hauptmann had the largest financial benefit. Please address how else he could have done this (without resorting to "he was laundering hot money" when it's baseless and it's clear he had no capital to buy hot money in the first place). (Rab) ***But this does not account for other money making ventures. Hauptmann was loaning money for interest. Hauptmann was taking money for people and investing it for them. This money shows as HIS going into his account and coming out as HIS when he paid it back with earnings. We simply do not know how much of this went on but it did go on. The Police were finding these out during their investigations mostly and not from Hauptmann himself. If he isn't talking about these ventures would he mention illegal activities which may account for financial gain outside of laundered ransom? I say that he wouldn't. I am still trying to figure out why he would make these investments for those people if he has all of this money in the first place. I have looked at his finances prior to the crime and I see unexplained amounts, a crazy purchase of a brand-new car, quitting his job during the depression afterwards, an irrational vacation to California on the heels of these events, and a return from it supposedly broke but renting a more expensive place, staying somewhere until its available, and having storage of his property the entire time since before his vacation. How does he afford this rent, and was his interim living situation free? Was his storage free? Apples and oranges? Possibly in one regard but it still hasn't been explained - so I say the rules applied to post-kidnapping should be applied to pre-kidnapping as well. I think you are of the opinion that I do not believe Hauptmann was in possession of "unexplained" cash before Fisch's departure but that isn't where I am at and I am not in that fight. Once again, I am looking at the possibility there may be a basis of fact in the "Fisch Story." I think its possible that Fisch did turn over approx $15,000 to Hauptmann. You said yourself that it's obvious Hauptmann would sometimes use real events to support and untruth. Why on earth does Hauptmann need to "rip-off" Fisch with all of this money in his possession? What need does Hauptmann have for Fisch if he is not involved in this mess? Please explain Hauptmann's position in the "conspiracy" given his enrichment of at least $40k from April 1932 to his arrest. How did he fund that lifestyle if not through ransom money? Then we can worry about the others. (Rab) ***See above. And if Fisch is out of the game in December after turning over $15,000, then Hauptmann's amount, barring any other variable is $25,000 if we don't consider some of this being from other Confederates. On what basis do you say they "refused" the money from Condon. I don't see anything to support that. It was requested in the ransom notes so why would they "refuse" it. This is just speculation, surely. (Rab) ***They asked for it, and Condon returned with it. Do you really believe Condon talked them out of taking it? If not, give me your reason why Condon came back to the car with this money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 14, 2006 19:37:05 GMT -5
Michael, there has been so much investigation in this case and yet thr issue of Hauptmann's finances prior to 4/32 seems to escape examination. You are the only one who I have heard discuss it in depth. What sources are available on this subject and what do you think the source of Hauptmann's prior income?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2006 21:21:57 GMT -5
There are several, and when I go over the financies I use the following:
Agent Genau's reports. (There are several).
Agent Frank's reports. (There are several).
The various Police reports and bank records concerning Hauptmann's finances. (There are many).
The various personal notebooks found in Hauptmann's apartment. (One which I could not find at the NJSP Archives and I am indebted to Rab for sending me).
Siglinde's personal research on this subject.
And of course Rab's research that I have available to me.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 15, 2006 7:56:30 GMT -5
Michael, it may seem that I'm pushing you to defend a certain position but really I'm only trying to move the debate forward. We really must address these questions head on or otherwise progress stagnates on things like Kloppenberg's testimony which we can never prove one way or another. The Fisch story as formulated by Hauptmann was a lie. That much is clear. You are arguing for some possible truth to the story but I think if you are to do that, you need to hang your hat on some sort of starting point. Let's start here: if you believe that Hauptmann received this money from Fisch, when did he receive it? We can then go from there. I'm well aware of Hauptmann investing for other people (in fact I think I was the first to point this out - see my archived post on what I believe to be the real nature of the partnership lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141571543 (1st "reply")) and also that he loaned money to people for interest. Neither of these explain his enrichment. You ask why he would do so if he had the money. To me the answer is simple - he wanted more and he wanted to impress people. Why did he play the stock market for himself if not to make money? One thing is clear from Hauptmann's nature and various schemes: he was obsessed with money and how to make it easily. So to me it is straightforward. Kevin, in terms of Hauptmann's pre-April 1932 finances, I have all of his bank statements, deposit slips and notebooks. Despite what Michael suggests, the finances do not compare to April 1932 onwards though certainly the Hauptmanns were frugal, saved well and until Hauptmann lost so much money playing the stock market in 1929/30, they were doing ok. The expenditure on the car, the "holiday" to California etc are all clearly supported by withdrawals from their bank accounts which is not the case post-April 1932. There is some more on this in the archived post referenced above but if you want to know anything specific, let me know. Rab
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Mar 15, 2006 9:21:25 GMT -5
I find Special Agent Frank's observation about Isidor's Account on page 73 very interesting. In itself, it seems to account almost exactly to the the dollar amount found in Hauptmann's garage, given the originally stated amount of $17,000, withdrawals totalling $2080, total of the passed gold notes between December 1933 / September 1934 and the $20 gold certificate found on Hauptmann's person.
Michael / Rab, have you come across any records of Anna's regular waitressing income from April 1932 until she quit in December of 1932, as was previously and meticulously noted by BRH? It appears that he no longer considered this an integral part of his monetary record keeping.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 15, 2006 17:51:51 GMT -5
I don't want to lose Joe's question but I did want to explore BRH's employment/earning record prior to the kidnap. I have wondered if there is any indication of illegal gains during this period? I sometimes have a hard time with the image of Hauptmann as a reformed worker who decides to return to a life a crime in such a spectacular fashion after a long hiatus. I don't see any evidence that he was a craftsman and I find Michael and Rab's description of him as a quick money guy to be reflected in what I do see of him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2006 21:16:05 GMT -5
The Fisch story as formulated by Hauptmann was a lie. That much is clear. (Rab) ***I agree. Let's start here: if you believe that Hauptmann received this money from Fisch, when did he receive it? We can then go from there. (Rab) ***This is not a question that is easily answered. I am of the opinion that Fisch was laundering the ransom money and that a "fake" business relationship was created to account for it. I believe both stocks and furs were meant to be a "cover" and in the meantime if they could make even more money as a result of investments in both - than even a better situation. I do believe a lump sum of the rest was given to Hauptmann by Fisch which was meant to stay in-tact until Fisch returned. Hauptmann (and possibly Mueller) couldn't keep his/their hands off the money and the rest is history. I look at Hauptmann's actions and when I see a change then I ask myself "why?" People simply do not deviate from their normal behavior unless there is a reason. I'm well aware of Hauptmann investing for other people (in fact I think I was the first to point this out - see my archived post on what I believe to be the real nature of the partnership lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141571543 (1st "reply")) and also that he loaned money to people for interest. (Rab) ***I've always known you knew this - that wasn't my point. Neither of these explain his enrichment. (Rab) ***I just don't know how you know this. You have no idea the exact extent of this - and neither did the Investigators. That's my point and I suggest other unknown activities were possible because we see this was discovered and they still didn't know everything about it or everyone involved. To me the answer is simple - he wanted more and he wanted to impress people. Why did he play the stock market for himself if not to make money? One thing is clear from Hauptmann's nature and various schemes: he was obsessed with money and how to make it easily. So to me it is straightforward.(Rab) ***We certainly agree he was obsessed with making "easy money." However, he supposedly has all of this money which needs to be made clean and you have him concentrating on this why? What's the old saying?.... "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Kevin, in terms of Hauptmann's pre-April 1932 finances, I have all of his bank statements, deposit slips and notebooks. Despite what Michael suggests, the finances do not compare to April 1932 onwards though certainly the Hauptmanns were frugal, saved well and until Hauptmann lost so much money playing the stock market in 1929/30, they were doing ok. The expenditure on the car, the "holiday" to California etc are all clearly supported by withdrawals from their bank accounts which is not the case post-April 1932. There is some more on this in the archived post referenced above but if you want to know anything specific, let me know.(Rab) ***Here is what I suggest.... Unless you believe there is a "secret stash" of money in the trunk then you accept the following provided for from Hauptmann's own accounting records and accounts: Hauptmann's funds are in poor shape. He has a job, has the mortgage (which he doesn't touch), the 50 shares of Warner Bros. Pictures (which he doesn't sell), and a small amount of cash. Suddenly, Hauptmann's behavior changes drastically for no apparent reason. Let's think about it.... His funds were very low, he quits his job during the depression, buys a new car which virtually depletes his account and takes off for California. It just about exhausts his funds which Rab is well aware of. When he returns he has no job, and has to pay the margin call on his stock account $50.00 for May and $25 for December. It leaves him with about $76.00 in his Central Savings Bank Account. Yet he rents this new, more expensive apartment ($50 a month and $50 security) in October, must pay for living expenses and temporary furnished quarters on East 174th Street, and must pay storage fees for his property which had been there the entire length of his trip and up until his moving into Rauch's place. I find Special Agent Frank's observation about Isidor's Account on page 73 very interesting. In itself, it seems to account almost exactly to the the dollar amount found in Hauptmann's garage, given the originally stated amount of $17,000, withdrawals totalling $2080, total of the passed gold notes between December 1933 / September 1934 and the $20 gold certificate found on Hauptmann's person.(Joe) ***You're seeing what I am seeing Joe.... I'll defer the rest of the questions by Joe and Kevin to Rab. I will post if I have anything to add afterwards and I think I might...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 16, 2006 6:51:34 GMT -5
I will wait for Rab's response. just wanted to say that I think I see where you are going, Michael. I have a similar feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 17, 2006 3:49:21 GMT -5
I think there are a number of very valid points being raised here and I want to address each of them individually and in detail. But not today because it's St Patrick's Day and as a proud Irishman I'm going to be killing many brain cells later on. So I'll return to this over the weekend when I've recovered.
Sláinte
Rab
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 17, 2006 17:46:15 GMT -5
As we begin to unravel the partnership of Fisch and BRH I have two questions:
1. Is it true that Fisch's catskins or sealskins were up in the attic? When were they put up there? Did Fisch put his own skins up into the attic in 1933? Did he have access to the attic?
2. Is the closet with the ransom money and shelf etc the closet up to the attic or not?
|
|
|
Post by steve for rick 3 on Mar 17, 2006 20:54:53 GMT -5
your question about the closets i can answer. the shoebox story takes place on the top shelf of the kitchen pantry closet,to get in the attic, there is a closet right next to huptmanns bedroom, where back then you had to talke the shelves out and climb up
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 18, 2006 3:30:22 GMT -5
thanks Steve/ i have seen a floorplan of the Hauptmanns apartment but cant find it. I have seen a photo of the kitchen closet and it appears very small and narrow. Is the bedroom closet any larger? We shouldnt be too quick to dismiss the shoebox story. Hans confirms that Fisch showed up at the party with a box of some kind. If he was lying about this who is he protecting? Fisch or BRH?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2006 8:09:13 GMT -5
In regard to the shoe box story it is important to remember that lies often contain elements of truth in their construction. Perhaps Fisch did bring and leave a shoe box with BRH . Perhaps Hauptmann even put it in that pantry closet, and perhaps it did get wet and damaged. There is absolutely no logical deduction that can be made from those events and the box which in any way indicates that it contained any money. Now if you could show that Fisch always stored money in shoe boxes then you might reasonably deduce that it held the ransom money, otherwise you are basing the whole premise of the Fisch story on the account given by a man who everyone must admit is a liar.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 18, 2006 8:48:03 GMT -5
rick, speaking of liars, the closet shelf in the kitchen was above Anna's head and that is why she didn't use it. I have top shelves like that myself that are only used for storage. she did realize after the trial that that the shelf had been lowered and the closet re-painted to appear as if she had been lying about its inaccessibility. From what I've read the hall closet was very narrow and Gov. Hoffman had difficulty squezzing up it. The shelves had to be removed to gain access to the attic.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2006 10:29:36 GMT -5
Come now, isn't smiting a cowardly response
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2006 11:18:34 GMT -5
I agree with Kevin's post about the "element of truth." It's what makes a good liar - a good liar.
I say Fisch did give a package of that shape to Hauptmann on that night due to Kloppenberg's testimony. The exact size, as Kevin points out, is Fishy but I don't think Kloppenberg went in their to perjure himself, only to explain what he saw without violating the orders given to him by Wilentz that he could not say it was a shoe box or he would be arrested as an accomplice. We also have to remember this accusation comes from Kloppenberg, so if you don't believe his testimony then I say there are grounds to disbelieve this claim as well. However, I believe him because other people were making independent claims concerning very similar situations.
Now what Kathy points out, for me, is what opens the door of possibility concerning the package's storage place. Anna may not have seen it there and didn't lie to say she did. The other point she makes about the Gov. Hoffman is quite true. That was a very "pain-in-the-ass" situation to have to remove those shelves and climb up there.
I think to suggest Fisch had access to the attic would mean Hauptmann would be with him at the time. Mrs. Rauch was usually always home and was very nosy so I think if someone went into the Hauptmann's place without them being there she would have known about it.
I am almost positive those skins were not in the attic. I am going to take some time and honor Kevin's request by listing exactly what was up there today or tomorrow.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 18, 2006 11:40:12 GMT -5
What might be more relevant or important regarding the attic issue is whether there was a ladder dedicated to that attic scuttle. I have never read anything about this. Sometimes, though not very often, I have found a ladder is stored in or near an attic scuttle. The absence of such a ladder means that one has to be brought up from a remote location in order to access the attic. Not a big deal for occasional entry or repair where a tradesman would have his own ladder, but without one handy it would not be quite so easy to get up there.
|
|
|
Post by steve romeo on Mar 18, 2006 13:01:02 GMT -5
since ive ben lucky enough to be in the apt a few years ago, the linen clost next to hauptmnns bedroom is much larger then the closet pantry in the kitchen where the supposed shoebox was. i know for a fact that the top shlf was never moved. the guy who lived there was a super in a apt complex in the city and has a mechanic ackround. while studying it i asked him if it was ever moved he said no. i looked for screw marks and such. dont forget to my surprise its the original shelves in there. in the linen cost the doorhatch is still on the top. of course now they have since installed a portable stairway to the attic. thats the way i got up there
|
|