|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 6, 2018 13:01:17 GMT -5
The last chapter of V. 2 of TDC, dealing primarily with Isador Fisch, has me thinking that Fisch was much more than a distraction created by "the Fisch story" by a culpable Hauptmann.
(1) Although I was pretty much unsure that the man who visited Breckinridge's office about a week after the purported kidnapping was Fisch, I'm more certain now that he was. It's not so much the physical descriptors which Breck gave (which could suffer in accuracy because of the long time span between that visit and the photos of the real Fisch which appeared ubiquitously following Hauptmann's arrest and "Fisch story"), but more so the psychiatric abnormalities exhibited by the strange visitor. My educated guess is that the odd behavior exhibited by this man corresponds well with the odd behavior described by several other people known to have encounters with the REAL living Fisch. It seems from a modern day psychiatric perspective that Fisch may very well have suffered from bipolar disorder (manic-depressive disorder).
(2) Little doubt that Fisch was in possession of large quantities of Lindbergh ransom money shortly after the ransom was paid. And he seemed that he was aware that law enforcement was looking for ransom bills. Therefore he was obsessed with with unloading them, even stopping strangers on New York streets - either via himself or associates - in attempts to sell off what he was calling "hot money." This was very risky behavior by Fisch, but maybe in his mind less risky than holding the ransom money. As it turned out, holding and spending ransom money was precisely what doomed his friend Hauptmann.
(3) Could be that Fisch's fear of being apprehended in the US via his possession of large quantities of ransom bills played a role in his going back to Germany, and perhaps fur business considerations with his brother were more of a cover-up excuse for his taking this trip. After all, there couldn't have been very many German Jews going from the US to Nazi Germany in 1933. Many times more were travelling in the opposite direction if they could.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 7, 2018 21:36:52 GMT -5
To All: Aside from the elder Osborne's answer at cross-exam in the Hauptmann trial, does anyone know if law enforcement diligently compared Fisch's known handwriting samples with the ransom notes?
Another thought: the "singnature" on some of the ransom notes was believed by some to symbolize a FISH's bladder. So is it at all possible that Isidor Fisch, because of his real name. would have used that symbol cryptically as his personal signature?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2018 8:56:52 GMT -5
To All: Aside from the elder Osborne's answer at cross-exam in the Hauptmann trial, does anyone know if law enforcement diligently compared Fisch's known handwriting samples with the ransom notes? In an attempt to get you a quick answer I went to my Snook file. On December 4, 1934 Stein was given an opportunity to look over an original Fisch letter. According to Snook, the AG wanted more samples for comparison by the Experts in " preparation for rebuttal in case of a claim by the defense that the ransom notes have been written by Fisch." In his January 1937 review, Snook claimed that " handwriting experts for the State examined the handwriting of Isidor Fisch and gave the prosecution an opinion to the effect that he did not write the ransom notes."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 20:10:14 GMT -5
Michael opens his volume II chapter (page 562) about Isidor Fisch with the following question: "Was Isador Fisch involved in this crime, and if so, did he possess ransom money?
An International News Service story appeared in American newspapers on September 22, 1934. The story was coming out of Leipzig, Germany. This story featured an interview with Solomon Fisch, Isidor's father. Mr. Fisch says of Isidor that he was a good son and an excellent scholar. Isidor had a high school education and went on to enter the fur trade as an apprentice. Solomon told the interviewer that Isidor "distinguished himself as a clever craftsman." Solomon Fisch was clearly very proud of his son. He went on to say that Isidor eventually followed his close friend (Henry Uhlig) to the United States in 1925, working with furriers in New York. According to Mr. Fisch, both Uhlig and Isidor made good money.
The really interesting segment of this interview, I am going to quote here. Solomon Fisch said the following:
"From 1932 on, Isidore supported his brother Pinkus and his sister Hannah with large amounts of money from America. This enabled Hannah to furnish a new three-room apartment and Pinkus to move from his obscure and small fur shop in the Goldhahngasse to the Brugl, the headquarters of the world's fur traders in Leipzig, where he (Pinkus) now has a big establishment. Hannah and Pinkus have thus been able to live very much differently than before."
The picture that Solomon Fisch presents of Isidor, Pinkus, and Hannah is quite different from the one that was turning up frequently in the newspapers (1934-35) and certainly is at odds with how this family was presented at Hauptmann's trial. So what is going on here??
1) Is Solomon lying about his children and throwing Isidor under the bus as a possible participant in the Lindbergh Kidnapping crime? Why would he do such a thing?
2) Were the finances of the Fisch family in Germany looked into, especially from 1932 on to see if there was this sudden enrichment as Solomon Fisch claims in this interview?
3) If Solomon Fisch is not misrepresenting his children and their financial condition, could this mean that Fisch was really part of the kidnapping/extortion and did send large sums of money to his brother and sister? Or was Fisch actually getting the sums of money from Hauptmann (which were supposed to be invested in furs for their partnership), and then sending the money/furs purchased to his brother Pinkus?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2018 10:32:34 GMT -5
All great questions and observations.
The father sued Pinkus in 1932 for support. This put everyone in a sticky situation about money. Who "had" or "did not have" (what) in a situation like this is hard to say since everyone is guarding or out for their own personal interests. So you'll have instances where the family was saying Fisch was "well to do" possessing a fortune of "at least $10,000" but then in a different instance saying he didn't have much. In the father's case during the welfare suit against Pinkus he wrote that Isador had recently sent Pinkus 2000RM meant to assist HIM but that Pinkus used it to buy a piano. Later he wrote that Isador was unemployed and without means to assist in his support. Pinkus countered by claiming Isador was not without means to assist.
Arthur Johnson did some investigating concerning finances. But this in no way revealed the entire situation. For example, during the Hoffman investigation it was discovered that Fisch sent his father $25 on May 17, 1933 thru the Tausig Agency in New York. It was also revealed that he sent $25 to Hanna on August 19, 1933. I could be missing or forgetting something but from what I have in front of me Johnson did not turn this up during his investigation. The DA in Leipzig informed Hoffman that domestic money orders and other documents were destroyed within two years and that all cashed money orders from abroad were sent to the Central Post Office in Berlin which were then returned to the country of origin.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 10, 2018 10:39:17 GMT -5
if fisch was so wealthy why did a jewish organization from here pay for his gravestone? I have the article
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 10, 2018 10:41:39 GMT -5
amy theres no real proof that fisch was involved in the crime. people for years were trying to connect him to the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2018 11:21:18 GMT -5
if fisch was so wealthy why did a jewish organization from here pay for his gravestone? I have the article Steve - although Fisch had this organization hoaxed into believing he was "down and out" this was a "benefit" of belonging to this organization. So they would have paid for a headstone for any of their members who died. There is no question that Fisch had money. The question is where it was coming from. In some cases we know, and in others we do not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 10, 2018 11:34:46 GMT -5
Michael opens his volume II chapter (page 562) about Isidor Fisch with the following question: "Was Isador Fisch involved in this crime, and if so, did he possess ransom money? An International News Service story appeared in American newspapers on September 22, 1934. The story was coming out of Leipzig, Germany. This story featured an interview with Solomon Fisch, Isidor's father. Mr. Fisch says of Isidor that he was a good son and an excellent scholar. Isidor had a high school education and went on to enter the fur trade as an apprentice. Solomon told the interviewer that Isidor "distinguished himself as a clever craftsman." Solomon Fisch was clearly very proud of his son. He went on to say that Isidor eventually followed his close friend (Henry Uhlig) to the United States in 1925, working with furriers in New York. According to Mr. Fisch, both Uhlig and Isidor made good money. The really interesting segment of this interview, I am going to quote here. Solomon Fisch said the following: "From 1932 on, Isidore supported his brother Pinkus and his sister Hannah with large amounts of money from America. This enabled Hannah to furnish a new three-room apartment and Pinkus to move from his obscure and small fur shop in the Goldhahngasse to the Brugl, the headquarters of the world's fur traders in Leipzig, where he (Pinkus) now has a big establishment. Hannah and Pinkus have thus been able to live very much differently than before."The picture that Solomon Fisch presents of Isidor, Pinkus, and Hannah is quite different from the one that was turning up frequently in the newspapers (1934-35) and certainly is at odds with how this family was presented at Hauptmann's trial. So what is going on here?? 1) Is Solomon lying about his children and throwing Isidor under the bus as a possible participant in the Lindbergh Kidnapping crime? Why would he do such a thing? 2) Were the finances of the Fisch family in Germany looked into, especially from 1932 on to see if there was this sudden enrichment as Solomon Fisch claims in this interview? 3) If Solomon Fisch is not misrepresenting his children and their financial condition, could this mean that Fisch was really part of the kidnapping/extortion and did send large sums of money to his brother and sister? Or was Fisch actually getting the sums of money from Hauptmann (which were supposed to be invested in furs for their partnership), and then sending the money/furs purchased to his brother Pinkus?
Amy, in light of what Michael added below, I'd tend to believe Solomon is praising Isidor for his apparent financial generosity and dissing Pinkus for his lack of the same, without any implied recognition of the significance of the year 1932. I think Solomon is thinking about money here.. and little else. Very interesting though that he specifically states this year, as opposed to any more of a generic reference like "the early thirties." This would certainly lead one to believe Isidor was suddenly doing very well for himself in 1932, even though his health had begun to decline significantly, and he was fleecing people around him for loans he seemed to have no intention of repaying. What would be very interesting is the pattern of money Isidor sent home from the time he arrived in America in 1925 until his return to Germany in late 1933. And what exactly are these "large amounts of money from America" with actual dates? In any case, Isidor Fisch seems to have been the kind of person who could have had either loads of money or none at all, and still show little deviation from his continuous penniless pauper persona.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 10, 2018 16:42:26 GMT -5
amy theres no real proof that fisch was involved in the crime. people for years were trying to connect him to the case. So you don't think that the man who visited Breckinridge's office on March 7. 1932 was Fisch? If it was in fact Fisch, this is good circumstantial evidence by itself that Fisch was involved somehow in the case. Considering the timing and the fact that these two men had virtually nothing else to connect them, you would have to say that chances of Fisch paying a visit to Breckinridge if he were NOT involved would be next to zero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2018 20:48:25 GMT -5
The father sued Pinkus in 1932 for support In the father's case during the welfare suit against Pinkus he wrote that Isador had recently sent Pinkus 2000RM meant to assist HIM but that Pinkus used it to buy a piano. Later he wrote that Isador was unemployed and without means to assist in his support. Pinkus countered by claiming Isador was not without means to assist. Doesn't this validate to a degree, then, what Solomon was saying in that article that Fisch was sending money to Germany? Solomon is seeing the changes in the standard of living of Pinkus and Hannah and wants help from them. So Fisch was helping his family in Germany. This is where some of the money he obtained, by whatever means, was going. Didn't Uhlig end up involved indirectly with this lawsuit by Solomon Fisch by going to the German Consulate in New York and swearing that Isidor Fisch had no means (job, money) to help his Father? Solomon Fisch did allude to a small amount of support from Isidor in the article I quoted from previously. He said, "As for me, Isidore never did anything for me except give me a very small amount of money. I am living in poverty except for the poor relief I receive."So why does Fisch send money to Pinkus and Hannah and not help his father? Perhaps Fisch was expecting Pinkus to "pay it forward" and help their father out. Or could it have something to do with the origin of the money Fisch was sending? Maybe he is actually being protective of his father because money he has been forwarding in 1932 and 1933 was from Lindbergh ransom money? Solomon does say in that article that Fisch had a large amount of money with him when he arrived in Germany. Isidor stayed with his Dad up until he went into the hospital. I am assuming that this must have been part of the money Hauptmann advanced him in November 1933. Interestingly, Henry Uhlig mentions in an interview he did that when he returned from Germany in 1934 and went to visit Hauptmann, he brought along a mandolin - a "Waldzither" that Hauptmann had asked Fisch to buy for him in Germany. Hauptmann was clearly expecting Fisch to return to America. In your chapter on Fisch, you show Fisch and Hauptmann's business partnership through some of Hauptmann's ledger entries. These entries reference 1933 business activity. Did Hauptmann ever enter into his ledger any business transactions he and Fisch had in 1932 concerning stocks or furs? Do you plan on exploring this Hauptmann/Fisch partnership in volume three?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2018 20:57:27 GMT -5
amy theres no real proof that fisch was involved in the crime. people for years were trying to connect him to the case. Police did find footprint evidence at High Fields of more than one person. Plus Al Reich and Charles Lindbergh each reported seeing lookouts at the cemetery meetings. Just because Wilentz didn't use any of this at the trial does not mean it didn't exist or have no evidentiary value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2018 21:30:27 GMT -5
Amy, in light of what Michael added below, I'd tend to believe Solomon is praising Isidor for his apparent financial generosity and dissing Pinkus for his lack of the same, without any implied recognition of the significance of the year 1932. I think Solomon is thinking about money here.. and little else. Very interesting though that he specifically states this year, as opposed to any more of a generic reference like "the early thirties." This would certainly lead one to believe Isidor was suddenly doing very well for himself in 1932, even though his health had begun to decline significantly, and he was fleecing people around him for loans he seemed to have no intention of repaying. What would be very interesting is the pattern of money Isidor sent home from the time he arrived in America in 1925 until his return to Germany in late 1933. And what exactly are these "large amounts of money from America" with actual dates? In any case, Isidor Fisch seems to have been the kind of person who could have had either loads of money or none at all, and still show little deviation from his continuous penniless pauper persona. Solomon was witnessing a dramatic change in the life of both Pinkus and Hannah in 1932 which Solomon knows is the result of financial assitance from Isidor who is in America. I agree that it would be very interesting if we could establish a money pattern for all this assistance that the German side of the family was receiving. Relocating your business into the heart of the Leipzig furrier district is a big leap. Do you think that the money Fisch was borrowing from his friends and acquaintances in America was being sent overseas to help his brother build the family fur business in Germany into a larger, more profitable firm? Is this why he always appeared poor and never had anything to cover where all this money was going that he was borrowing? Something else interesting came out of an interview Henry Uhlig did in 1934. After he came back to America from Germany in 1934 (May 3) he had a letter with him from Pinkus Fisch giving Uhlig permission to act on behalf of the Fisch family. He was to locate any assets Isidor had left behind in America. Around 10 days later, Uhlig, at Hauptmann's invitation, went to BRH's apartment to look over the things Fisch had left with Richard. They went to the garage where Hauptmann had placed the two suitcases Fisch left with him. In one of those suitcases Uhlig found Isidor's tuxedo. It seems Fisch wasn't so poor after all. No wonder he needed those dance lessons!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2018 13:11:30 GMT -5
Amy, in light of what Michael added below, I'd tend to believe Solomon is praising Isidor for his apparent financial generosity and dissing Pinkus for his lack of the same, without any implied recognition of the significance of the year 1932. I think Solomon is thinking about money here.. and little else. Very interesting though that he specifically states this year, as opposed to any more of a generic reference like "the early thirties." This would certainly lead one to believe Isidor was suddenly doing very well for himself in 1932, even though his health had begun to decline significantly, and he was fleecing people around him for loans he seemed to have no intention of repaying. What would be very interesting is the pattern of money Isidor sent home from the time he arrived in America in 1925 until his return to Germany in late 1933. And what exactly are these "large amounts of money from America" with actual dates? In any case, Isidor Fisch seems to have been the kind of person who could have had either loads of money or none at all, and still show little deviation from his continuous penniless pauper persona. Solomon was witnessing a dramatic change in the life of both Pinkus and Hannah in 1932 which Solomon knows is the result of financial assitance from Isidor who is in America. I agree that it would be very interesting if we could establish a money pattern for all this assistance that the German side of the family was receiving. Relocating your business into the heart of the Leipzig furrier district is a big leap. Do you think that the money Fisch was borrowing from his friends and acquaintances in America was being sent overseas to help his brother build the family fur business in Germany into a larger, more profitable firm? Is this why he always appeared poor and never had anything to cover where all this money was going that he was borrowing? Something else interesting came out of an interview Henry Uhlig did in 1934. After he came back to America from Germany in 1934 (May 3) he had a letter with him from Pinkus Fisch giving Uhlig permission to act on behalf of the Fisch family. He was to locate any assets Isidor had left behind in America. Around 10 days later, Uhlig, at Hauptmann's invitation, went to BRH's apartment to look over the things Fisch had left with Richard. They went to the garage where Hauptmann had placed the two suitcases Fisch left with him. In one of those suitcases Uhlig found Isidor's tuxedo. It seems Fisch wasn't so poor after all. No wonder he needed those dance lessons! It seems entirely possible the money Isidor was fleecing from his friends and acquaintances all went into his financial pot and was the source of some of the money he sent to his family in Germany. Personally, I don't believe he would have cared where the money came from. Regarding his professed intention of setting up a fur business in Germany, unless there was significantly more opportunity there, I can't see it happening. After all, his fur inventory in America, aside from the inexpensive ones he left with Hauptmann, was essentially worth nothing more than the paper it was typed on. Fisch seems to have been a very unstable character, a gambler and someone who kept his business affairs one-on-one only, even though he seems to have had many supporters after the fact. I wonder though just how many of these supporters simply wanted nothing to do with the possibility of him having been involved in this crime for reasons of its infamy, which might then reflect poorly upon themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2018 8:43:47 GMT -5
In your chapter on Fisch, you show Fisch and Hauptmann's business partnership through some of Hauptmann's ledger entries. These entries reference 1933 business activity. Did Hauptmann ever enter into his ledger any business transactions he and Fisch had in 1932 concerning stocks or furs? Do you plan on exploring this Hauptmann/Fisch partnership in volume three? The Ledger to which you refer is "National No. 814." It was an exhibit during the trial... I want to say S-258 but double check me on that one. Hauptmann records stock transactions in 1932 in this ledger beginning on page 4. However, Fisch's name isn't attached until that notation on page 50. Here's what Frank wrote: He claims Fisch made some small profits for him in fur trading, which profits he left with Fisch - "he wanted to keep the money working" - and that when he started his borkerage account with Steiner, Rouse and Company in August 1932, Fisch joined in with him and supplied most of the cash that went into the account. Of course, it is possible that Fisch did advance the $1,612.50 that Hauptmann put into his brokerage account at Steiner, Rouse and Company but it is the old story of putting responsibility on a dead man and it is also inconsistent with his claim of having loaned $7,000 to Fisch. I plan on a Chapter 1 in V3 exactly like the one in V2. Here is where I will add anything I think should be mentioned which I left out of Chapter 10. Its a real dilemma because, like I've previously said, I do not want to water down things but I also don't want to omit would could be important as well. Examining the "numbers" from Frank, Wilson, Genau, all of the testimony, information in police reports, statements, etc. could in itself become an entire book. But would it be "readable" or would it just bore everyone to death? I think in the end its just information that we "kind of" already know about. It's why I am trying to stick to revealing "unknown" or "new" material. Sometimes even if it doesn't lead anywhere... like for example, if there's someone mentioned attached to the case that has given rise to speculation and I know what they were all about - I am going to put that in there. A lot has to do with our discussions, debates, and interests right here on our Board. Everyone here has the most interest so I use it sometimes as a gauge of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 13, 2018 9:33:32 GMT -5
you need more then that amy. this dosnt prove fisch was involved
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 20:06:31 GMT -5
you need more then that amy. this dosnt prove fisch was involved Those High Field footprints don't prove Hauptmann was there either, including the casted print that was at the base of the ladder. He didn't make that print, so who did?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 15, 2018 2:26:31 GMT -5
I'd like to know where and to what extent the fingerprint(s?) found under the cleat was checked. That would be useful information. The rest of the stuff on here and all that's being currently looked at is just BS.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 15, 2018 8:34:31 GMT -5
i think the ladder proved he was there, he was spending the ransom money. theres to much against him
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 15, 2018 8:36:56 GMT -5
the problem is we don't know for sure if it was fisch in his office. people want to connect fisch to this crime with no real evidence. its been happening for years
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 15, 2018 10:32:36 GMT -5
you need more then that amy. this dosnt prove fisch was involved Those High Field footprints don't prove Hauptmann was there either, including the casted print that was at the base of the ladder. He didn't make that print, so who did? I don't believe there is a positive way of comparing a print made from someone's shoe with a print that appears to have been made by some kind of sock covering. Specifically, what was the sock material covering?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 15, 2018 14:27:14 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a positive way of comparing a print made from someone's shoe with a print that appears to have been made by some kind of sock covering. Specifically, what was the sock material covering? Firstly, there is a way to compare them. How much bigger can a size get with a sock, two socks, a piece of burlap?... These are all things police do to see what could or could not "fit." Next, Police had measurements (cast of and actual measurements e.g. page 283 V2). They had all of Hauptmann's shoes (and still do), and his actual foot while he was in custody. Hauptmann's shoe size is reported in the documentation as being larger than the measurements. Something over the shoe would make the measurements larger wouldn't it? And so, covering or not, Hauptmann could not make his foot smaller. I've put everything out there imaginable and it all indicates his foot did not match. If one still believes Hauptmann was in Hopewell as well as at Saint Raymond's then they would have to explore other explanations....
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 16, 2018 8:43:16 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a positive way of comparing a print made from someone's shoe with a print that appears to have been made by some kind of sock covering. Specifically, what was the sock material covering? Firstly, there is a way to compare them. How much bigger can a size get with a sock, two socks, a piece of burlap?... These are all things police do to see what could or could not "fit." Next, Police had measurements (cast of and actual measurements e.g. page 283 V2). They had all of Hauptmann's shoes (and still do), and his actual foot while he was in custody. Hauptmann's shoe size is reported in the documentation as being larger than the measurements. Something over the shoe would make the measurements larger wouldn't it? And so, covering or not, Hauptmann could not make his foot smaller. I've put everything out there imaginable and it all indicates his foot did not match. If one still believes Hauptmann was in Hopewell as well as at Saint Raymond's then they would have to explore other explanations.... Could the footprints studied and determined to be too small to match Hauptmann have matched Fisch? (You would expect Fisch, significantly shorter than Hauptmann, to have a smaller shoe size.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2018 9:33:26 GMT -5
Could the footprints studied and determined to be too small to match Hauptmann have matched Fisch? (You would expect Fisch, significantly shorter than Hauptmann, to have a smaller shoe size.) I haven't seen any documentation to suggest they looked at that. However, that doesn't mean they didn't. As I attempted (and hopefully succeeded) to do in both books was lay out the "evidence" and the course by which the NJSP followed. We had the ladder. At first it looked like a great clue but Schwarzkopf did not have much faith in it as time wore on. We see they looked at lumber sources early on when considering any suspect. They looked over tools and any Buck Brothers chisels drew immediate attention. They looked at handwriting. At first eliminating people based on the Ransom Notes then later the J. J. Faulkner Deposit Slip. They paid close attention to the thumbs of any suspect (once this clue was revealed) and we can plainly see that Condon really gave them the run-around with that one. They had the fingerprint evidence and footprint evidence which was kept as close to the vest as possible because there were "denials" about both. As with the footprint cast at Hopewell which supposedly did not exist, and the cast at Saint Raymond's which may or may not have had any value. But what we do know is they had the measurements. They were checking shoe sizes looking for possible matches. So in the end, if casts were not used or could not yield results they, beyond all doubt, did use the measurements. This idea that they were never any good because they did not, in the end, match Hauptmann suggests they would have been if they did. See how that works? So they are checking out everyone for 2-1/2 years just for the hell of it? As far as Fisch goes I hope Amy, Joe, or anyone else decides to dig deeper into all of this. If he was "duping" Hauptmann we have to ask how a guy smart enough to pull off everything that needed to be done got "duped" in this way. We also have to ask if he was this gullible what the odds are that he confided in Fisch exactly what that money was? Think about it. The biggest "problem" seems to be laundering the money first so that it could be "freed up" to use to make more. What are the odds that, even if Fisch came into this thing after the fact, that he didn't know where the money came from? And if Hauptmann is laundering any of it through Fisch in some way - then he absolutely had to know in my opinion. No where in any of the documentation does it say Hauptmann was conning Fisch. However, in order to keep the Lone-Wolf story in tact - "history" records three possible options: 1. Its Fisch merely conning Hauptmann who he thinks is both a wealthy and legitimate businessman. 2. A real partnership but with Fisch kept completely in the dark. 3. Fisch broke, penniless, and sometimes sleeping on park benches while Hauptmann was making everything up. These options may exist in DisneyLand but certainly not in the real world. Most especially one which existed in NYC back in the 1930s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 10:30:35 GMT -5
Fisch, Hauptmann & furs leads us to James Warburg. When the police entered Hauptmann's house there were furs lying all over the place. James Warburg's bank financed 25% of the U.S. fur industry. His first published book was about Hides, Skins, & Leather. Fischs' German expeditions coincide with Warburg's German birth & yearly trips to family's German bank.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Aug 16, 2018 17:24:28 GMT -5
Fisch, Hauptmann & furs leads us to James Warburg. When the police entered Hauptmann's house there were furs lying all over the place. James Warburg's bank financed 25% of the U.S. fur industry. His first published book was about Hides, Skins, & Leather. Fischs' German expeditions coincide with Warburg's German birth & yearly trips to family's German bank. Alan, you mentioned in your other posts that Fisch has ties to Jewish Gangsters. I want to see documentation of the fact that Fisch has ties to the world of Jewish Gangsters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 10:28:22 GMT -5
No where in any of the documentation does it say Hauptmann was conning Fisch. However, in order to keep the Lone-Wolf story in tact - "history" records three possible options: 1. Its Fisch merely conning Hauptmann who he thinks is both a wealthy and legitimate businessman. 2. A real partnership but with Fisch kept completely in the dark. 3. Fisch broke, penniless, and sometimes sleeping on park benches while Hauptmann was making everything up. I don't think those three options reflect the true state of the business relationship between Fisch and Hauptmann either. I think it is more like two men who worked together in the extortion of the $50,000 dollars from Lindbergh with an undocumented agreement to mutually invest in stocks and furs together to increase their wealth. I do think Fisch was deceptive, however, on how he was handling the monies that were to be used to build up the fur end of the business. I see a level of trust that was created through their extortion of the money, that Hauptmann then clearly attached to the business relationship. Looking at Fisch and his affairs, however, Fisch is using that trust to enable him to use extortion funds the way he wants. Fisch was clearly smarter and way more shrewd than Hauptmann. In TDC Vol. II, Chapter 10 (Isador Fisch), page 568, you bring up the monetary figure of $17,500. Agent Frank points to this amount being Hauptmann's money. Hauptmann had offered at some point the explanation that he had put up $17,500 and that Fisch had put up $17,500. That makes $35,000 dollars together. This would represent a large portion of the Lindbergh ransom money that both these men are sharing and investing for business purposes. This would make Hauptmann and Fisch equal partners in this business, wouldn't it? It also would account for why Hauptmann was hesitate to make loans without checking with his partner first. If its all Hauptmann's money, why would he credit Fisch with investing $17,500 into the business and then lowering that investment by $2,000 to $15,000 unless it was Fisch's share of the extortion money to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2018 9:53:01 GMT -5
If its all Hauptmann's money, why would he credit Fisch with investing $17,500 into the business and then lowering that investment by $2,000 to $15,000 unless it was Fisch's share of the extortion money to begin with? There's (3) very important things mentioned by Frank which is on pages 568-9: 1. Agent Frank puts it in his report that this notation appears to indicate that Fisch had a credit of $15,000 coming to him.
2. It could represent his interest in Furs OR the amount Hauptmann said he left behind for safe-keeping.
3. This amount is NOT appear in any identifiable form anywhere in Hauptmann's accounts. So if one of us were to have made this observation ourselves, the "other" side would shrug it off. That much I am sure of. However, this is coming from Frank and its in his report. But whenever you see the run-down of Hauptmann's money quoted by Lone-Wolf believers they always point to Frank. So now they are in a catch-22 because we can see he's the one suggesting the possibilities - and exactly why. He's also the guy who verified Hauptmann's ledgers - so there goes their "excuse" that Hauptmann made them all up. While it doesn't "prove" anything it certainly exposes what Frank actually considered while acting in his official capacity. It also begs the question why it was ignored or omitted by all of the so-called Experts. My guess is they never laid eyes on this report. It's easier just to rely on the Trial Transcripts right? Of course, because that's exactly where Frank says everything they like. But if they really wanted to know, and went to the Archives and discovered it - then they'd find it would harm their narrative. And so I wouldn't expect it to have been addressed if they did.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2018 9:25:32 GMT -5
I don't believe there is a positive way of comparing a print made from someone's shoe with a print that appears to have been made by some kind of sock covering. Specifically, what was the sock material covering? Firstly, there is a way to compare them. How much bigger can a size get with a sock, two socks, a piece of burlap?... These are all things police do to see what could or could not "fit." Next, Police had measurements (cast of and actual measurements e.g. page 283 V2). They had all of Hauptmann's shoes (and still do), and his actual foot while he was in custody. Hauptmann's shoe size is reported in the documentation as being larger than the measurements. Something over the shoe would make the measurements larger wouldn't it? And so, covering or not, Hauptmann could not make his foot smaller. I've put everything out there imaginable and it all indicates his foot did not match. If one still believes Hauptmann was in Hopewell as well as at Saint Raymond's then they would have to explore other explanations.... Regarding the foot imprint at Hopewell, do you know what the burlap type material was covering? If it was a foot, as opposed to a shoe, how then do you make an accurate determinatiom of that person's shoe size? From what I know about the print made in the ground of the fresh grave at St. Raymond's, was it not estimated at 8-1/2, while Hauptmann wore a size 9?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2018 7:34:16 GMT -5
Regarding the foot imprint at Hopewell, do you know what the burlap type material was covering? If it was a foot, as opposed to a shoe, how then do you make an accurate determinatiom of that person's shoe size? From what I know about the print made in the ground of the fresh grave at St. Raymond's, was it not estimated at 8-1/2, while Hauptmann wore a size 9? Everything I have on the footprints is in both books. If you are talking about the imprint 18" from the footprint at the base of that ladder I do not believe that was a footprint at all which I attempted to address in V1. Any way you look at it, Hauptmann's foot was bigger than the prints they found. Remember, they wanted to match it up. If there was any way for his print to fit in any of those prints don't you think they would have done it? Think about it. They went to his shoe-maker, they seized every pair of his shoes the man owned, and they made comparisons. Best of all they had access to his foot (bare or shoed) while he was sitting in a jail cell and under their complete control. So here's what we're left with if we want to believe it was Hauptmann: 1. Hauptmann's foot shrunk.
2. Police matched it up with the evidence but chose not to use it.
3. That somehow, with evidence in hand, they didn't consider a bare foot. None of these options seem reasonable to me. That certainly doesn't mean he's "innocent" just that whoever made those prints wasn't him.
|
|