luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 16, 2019 13:02:22 GMT -5
I want to know if the lady with the ransom bill was ever identified in Greenwich, Connecticut.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2019 8:10:31 GMT -5
I want to know if the lady with the ransom bill was ever identified in Greenwich, Connecticut. Not to my knowledge - and believe me when I say I searched for it. I was just at the Archives recently which represented my 19th year (!!!) of searching through those files. My goal at that time was to find more on another ransom passing which concerned a female acting suspiciously while passing a ransom bill. I found a mention of it in a "summary" type document and its been my experience that each and every listing had a specific investigation behind it. However, I am pretty confident that while one did exist at one time its not at the NJSP Archives now. Several of these originated with Lt. Finn so I often wonder about a possible treasure trove of "new" material which may exist in NY. I've got references to plenty that are not in NJ ... I've got a file on their D.D.5s and while some copies mentioned in that file can be found here - there are many that do not. A great example would be their Marie Cummings investigations. I see listed several investigations made in NY that simply do not exist at the NJSP Archives.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2019 9:32:59 GMT -5
I want to know if the lady with the ransom bill was ever identified in Greenwich, Connecticut. Not to my knowledge - and believe me when I say I searched for it. I was just at the Archives recently which represented my 19th year (!!!) of searching through those files. My goal at that time was to find more on another ransom passing which concerned a female acting suspiciously while passing a ransom bill. I found a mention of it in a "summary" type document and its been my experience that each and every listing had a specific investigation behind it. However, I am pretty confident that while one did exist at one time its not at the NJSP Archives now. Several of these originated with Lt. Finn so I often wonder about a possible treasure trove of "new" material which may exist in NY. I've got references to plenty that are not in NJ ... I've got a file on their D.D.5s and while some copies mentioned in that file can be found here - there are many that do not. A great example would be their Marie Cummings investigations. I see listed several investigations made in NY that simply do not exist at the NJSP Archives. Somewhere I have information on the investigation followup for this event. This ransom note sighting was never confirmed by authorities, as I believe the lady immediately snatched it back from the proprietor who told her it was one, and then left the establishment. In any case, I recall her first name as Rose, she had the appearance of being very well-to-do and had a chauffeur-driven vehicle waiting outside. Her actions in retrieving the note could possibly have had more to do with her disgust in somehow being considered complicit in 'something as repulsive' as the Lindbergh crime. I'll see what I can come up with, but I'd venture she quite unknowingly could have ended up with one of the ransom notes, until then undetected, in her possession.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 17, 2019 11:56:52 GMT -5
Not to my knowledge - and believe me when I say I searched for it. I was just at the Archives recently which represented my 19th year (!!!) of searching through those files. My goal at that time was to find more on another ransom passing which concerned a female acting suspiciously while passing a ransom bill. I found a mention of it in a "summary" type document and its been my experience that each and every listing had a specific investigation behind it. However, I am pretty confident that while one did exist at one time its not at the NJSP Archives now. Several of these originated with Lt. Finn so I often wonder about a possible treasure trove of "new" material which may exist in NY. I've got references to plenty that are not in NJ ... I've got a file on their D.D.5s and while some copies mentioned in that file can be found here - there are many that do not. A great example would be their Marie Cummings investigations. I see listed several investigations made in NY that simply do not exist at the NJSP Archives. Somewhere I have information on the investigation followup for this event. This ransom note sighting was never confirmed by authorities, as I believe the lady immediately snatched it back from the proprietor who told her it was one, and then left the establishment. In any case, I recall her first name as Rose, she had the appearance of being very well-to-do and had a chauffeur-driven vehicle waiting outside. Her actions in retrieving the note could possibly have had more to do with her disgust in somehow being considered complicit in 'something as repulsive' as the Lindbergh crime. I'll see what I can come up with, but I'd venture she quite unknowingly could have ended up with one of the ransom notes, until then undetected, in her possession. Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed NYPD tracked her down and identified her as Rose Clifford.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2019 13:14:22 GMT -5
Somewhere I have information on the investigation followup for this event. This ransom note sighting was never confirmed by authorities, as I believe the lady immediately snatched it back from the proprietor who told her it was one, and then left the establishment. In any case, I recall her first name as Rose, she had the appearance of being very well-to-do and had a chauffeur-driven vehicle waiting outside. Her actions in retrieving the note could possibly have had more to do with her disgust in somehow being considered complicit in 'something as repulsive' as the Lindbergh crime. I'll see what I can come up with, but I'd venture she quite unknowingly could have ended up with one of the ransom notes, until then undetected, in her possession. Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed NYPD tracked her down and identified her as Rose Clifford. Thanks for the source, and I believe you're correct about the last name. I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2019 9:22:40 GMT -5
Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed NYPD tracked her down and identified her as Rose Clifford. Thanks for the source, and I believe you're correct about the last name. I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details. I don't recall that. The only Clifford I remember being connected to the case is Jack Wellen (aka Clifford). Is this coming from a book? This occurred in Greenwich, Conn and no license plate was obtained. However, I do remember there was a serial # from that bill recorded which, along with the behavior, is what led to their suspicions. Anyway as it concerns this woman actually being identified I will withhold my judgement until I can evaluate the actual source. That's the key.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 19, 2019 17:22:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the source, and I believe you're correct about the last name. I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details. I don't recall that. The only Clifford I remember being connected to the case is Jack Wellen (aka Clifford). Is this coming from a book? This occurred in Greenwich, Conn and no license plate was obtained. However, I do remember there was a serial # from that bill recorded which, along with the behavior, is what led to their suspicions. Anyway as it concerns this woman actually being identified I will withhold my judgement until I can evaluate the actual source. That's the key. This isn't from a book. Allen Koenigsberg of Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed that Rose Clifford was the identity of the woman who passed bill in Greenwich, Connecticut.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2019 8:55:11 GMT -5
This isn't from a book. Allen Koenigsberg of Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed that Rose Clifford was the identity of the woman who passed bill in Greenwich, Connecticut. I'd need to see a source Luf. I've seen certain internet "personalities" in the past make claims that were completely FALSE. Some examples: Claiming newspaper articles were NJSP Reports. Claiming to have a page from a Log Book then sharing with the Board what it said. Sounds great right? Until I actually found the Log Book at the NJSP Archives and it did NOT say what was asserted it had. Turned out it was all just a big fabrication. Another of my favorites is mimicking Fisher by inventing conversation - then using it (fly on the wall fantasy) to "prove" or "disprove" a position. I kid you not. So forgive me if I need more in order to determine the validity of this claim. As I've repeatedly said over and over ... I am certainly not in possession of everything out there so it is possible someone has something I haven't seen. But I'd have to know what it is then compare it against what I do have in order to formulate an opinion. Believe me when I say I'd love to see something new that I can learn from. But it first has to be real then next deemed legitimate. What do I mean by that? Let's see if he's willing to share it and then I'll demonstrate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2019 10:40:46 GMT -5
I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details. Joe, See if you can at least get out of him the type of source he is relying on (e.g. newspaper report, police report, letter, book, etc.). Also a date would be helpful as well. He doesn't have to give up the actual document. For me this is about learning what really occurred and if he's right I wouldn't hesitate to give him the credit he deserves. But if he's wrong - he's wrong. No big deal except, once again, we'll all learn from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 11:36:29 GMT -5
Isn't the most likely scenario that since the kidnapper James Warburg LIVES in Greenwich, Connecticut - that a woman from HIS world of chauffeurs etc. who may or may not have known that the money was hot - in a rush mistakenly passed it, realized her mistake and snatched it back and left?
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 23, 2019 15:46:13 GMT -5
Isn't the most likely scenario that since the kidnapper James Warburg LIVES in Greenwich, Connecticut - that a woman from HIS world of chauffeurs etc. who may or may not have known that the money was hot - in a rush mistakenly passed it, realized her mistake and snatched it back and left? Alan, why would Warburg give the ransom bill to his wife if the woman was actually his wife?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 24, 2019 10:04:54 GMT -5
I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details. Joe, See if you can at least get out of him the type of source he is relying on (e.g. newspaper report, police report, letter, book, etc.). Also a date would be helpful as well. He doesn't have to give up the actual document. For me this is about learning what really occurred and if he's right I wouldn't hesitate to give him the credit he deserves. But if he's wrong - he's wrong. No big deal except, once again, we'll all learn from it. I'll keep trying to get the source for this claim, but have been having major intermittent home internet issues for the past while. My relatively limited recall on this one is that the information comes out of the NYPD files as luf12 indicates. If I can figure out how to do a search of LindyKidnap, it should come up right away.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 24, 2019 10:05:53 GMT -5
Somewhere I have information on the investigation followup for this event. This ransom note sighting was never confirmed by authorities, as I believe the lady immediately snatched it back from the proprietor who told her it was one, and then left the establishment. In any case, I recall her first name as Rose, she had the appearance of being very well-to-do and had a chauffeur-driven vehicle waiting outside. Her actions in retrieving the note could possibly have had more to do with her disgust in somehow being considered complicit in 'something as repulsive' as the Lindbergh crime. I'll see what I can come up with, but I'd venture she quite unknowingly could have ended up with one of the ransom notes, until then undetected, in her possession. Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed NYPD tracked her down and identified her as Rose Clifford. Luf12, can you cite the actual post on LindyKidnap where this appears?
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 24, 2019 15:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2019 7:54:15 GMT -5
Okay. Someone provided me this information from that site. The first thing is to verify whether or not such a letter exists. As I've said ... I've seen a lot of shady things over the years so that is the first step. Going back to my notes I see that " Paul Samaritan" of " 170 W. 96th St" did write a letter about a Green Sedan license no. " N 19-77." Since no plate was recorded at the scene of the attempted passing this doesn't identify her at " that" woman. One of the true things Allen wrote is " among the zillions of letters received..." and he is absolutely correct about that. Police would then typically investigate their claims. So that's a lot of stuff to go through and a lot of investigations were made. It's easy for any researcher or someone other than one to "find" something in their limited capacity then " think" that one thing they found "means" whatever truth they'd like assigned to it. Here's how these correspondence files "worked." If in NY it was sometimes a joint effort between NY/NJ or simply the NYPD would run out and do it themselves. If outside of NJ or NY, Schwarzkopf would typically ask the FBI to get involved and have their Agents from an office in that state run down the information. ALL LE sources would then issue a report back. So let's say an NYPD report does not exist at the NJSP Archives - that in no way means Schwarzkopf did not know about it. A perfect example is the fact that I have a list of ALL DD5s but some are not at the Archives. Well, the list I have was provided to Schwarzkopf BY New York which is exactly how I know what's there and what isn't. And if I know it then Schwarzkopf knew it too - and that's assuming copies of these reports did not at one time actually reside there and were later lost or taken away. In this case Schwarzkopf absolutely knew because a letter from Samaritan about this IS at the NJSP Archives. I believe I might have it since I have it mentioned in my notes so I'll check. I also reached out to Mark to just in case. Judging from what's written in Allen's post I still don't see any proof of his claim within it. Did Ms. Collins admit that she was the woman who did this? If not, simply matching a description is hardly proof that it was her. Was she brought back to the scene for identification purposes? You see, that's what the police typically did concerning these things, and on top of that they never simply "believed" a person's story or alibi. This woman would have been thoroughly examined. There's also other variables to consider... Many people who thought they saw something stayed quiet because they were afraid, while others wanted involvement and/or connection hoping for a reward. Look at Silken as an example.... There were also witnesses who were mistaken as well. An example of this occurred in Hopewell ... once Hauptmann was arrested several people were mis-identifying Schippell AS Hauptmann. So with this is mind its very hard to draw a major conclusion about something like this without ALL the facts in hand AND the normal patterns surrounding their procedures seem to be missing. Anyway, until I find or get the documents in hand its hard for me to properly evaluate. We have to remember that as important as "we" think this is - the Police would think similarly. I suspect its someone who gave a lead, the police investigated, and there was nothing to prove it. Had it been verified Schwarzkopf would have announced it or there'd be a report neutralizing the matter. I will continue to look for that letter, search my Schwarzkopf files as well as my Ransom Money files to see what more I can tell you. I honestly feel that its a wild goose chase based upon someone's speculation about the matter - but I will continue to search nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2019 9:19:01 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 30, 2019 17:20:06 GMT -5
Was Rose Clifford not the woman who police were led to regarding the alleged attempt to pass a Lindbergh ransom bill? I can understand investigators not wanting to take this affair any further, if it was quickly determined that she was innocent of any involvement. I believe this was the point of the original post in that an identification of the person had been determined.. and nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Mar 31, 2019 2:49:54 GMT -5
Hi Joe
I understand the Rose Clifford situation as follows - It was reported that a woman attempted pass a kidnap banknote. A description of this woman, along with a description of the car, chauffer etc was given to police. Subsequently a member of the public provided a licence plate number of a car which fitted with the description provided, as did the driver and passenger. Investigations by the police concluded that despite these similarities, the woman traced by the licence plate provided - Rose Clifford - was not the same person who had tried to pass the ransom banknote, and that the reason she (Rose) was in the vicinity is that her bank was located nearby, which satisfied the police as to what she was doing there and that she had no involvement. Therefore the person who did try to pass the banknote remains unknown.
If that's not right, could someone enlighten us both?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2019 12:35:18 GMT -5
Was Rose Clifford not the woman who police were led to regarding the alleged attempt to pass a Lindbergh ransom bill? I can understand investigators not wanting to take this affair any further, if it was quickly determined that she was innocent of any involvement. I believe this was the point of the original post in that an identification of the person had been determined.. and nothing more. All I know is what both you and Luf wrote here previously...
Luf: "Yahoo group LindyTruth claimed NYPD tracked her down and identified her as Rose Clifford."
Joe: "Thanks for the source, and I believe you're correct about the last name. I couldn't recall it and this morning, sent an email to Allen, who is the moderator of that board to confirm the details."
Let's recap: The police got thousands upon thousands of letters and they tried to investigate all of them to the best of their ability. This is the original letter they rec'd: imgur.com/rh4WSeLSchwarzkopf, as usual, requested this be investigated. He did this by writing a letter to Inspector O'Brien on 4/18. Schwarzkopf specifically asked for them to run down the information contained in the letter. As you can see in the letter two suspicions are revealed: That this person might be the Connecticut Lady, and if so, she was probably the person who deposited the $20 bill in East River Bank. An investigation was conducted on 4/25 by NYPD and Rose Clifford was interviewed. This was the plate number on her car, therefore, police determined it was the person who Samaritan saw. What did the police determine? "A thorough investigation was made in this matter and found to be groundless." (Emphasis mine).
So I don't know what the point of bringing it up was considering she was ruled out. For example, just look at how many people were investigated as possibly being Cemetery John and ruled out? So I would expect that little detail should be revealed if one brings it up. Was it? Why the confusion? IDK I'm not a member over there.
Hi Joe I understand the Rose Clifford situation as follows - It was reported that a woman attempted pass a kidnap banknote. A description of this woman, along with a description of the car, chauffer etc was given to police. Subsequently a member of the public provided a licence plate number of a car which fitted with the description provided, as did the driver and passenger. Investigations by the police concluded that despite these similarities, the woman traced by the licence plate provided - Rose Clifford - was not the same person who had tried to pass the ransom banknote, and that the reason she (Rose) was in the vicinity is that her bank was located nearby, which satisfied the police as to what she was doing there and that she had no involvement. Therefore the person who did try to pass the banknote remains unknown. If that's not right, could someone enlighten us both? That's right. Schwarzkopf would have announced to the Press this woman had been located and explained she was exonerated. Instead, he was telling them the opposite. Her identity was never discovered.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 31, 2019 15:21:43 GMT -5
Hi Joe I understand the Rose Clifford situation as follows - It was reported that a woman attempted pass a kidnap banknote. A description of this woman, along with a description of the car, chauffer etc was given to police. Subsequently a member of the public provided a licence plate number of a car which fitted with the description provided, as did the driver and passenger. Investigations by the police concluded that despite these similarities, the woman traced by the licence plate provided - Rose Clifford - was not the same person who had tried to pass the ransom banknote, and that the reason she (Rose) was in the vicinity is that her bank was located nearby, which satisfied the police as to what she was doing there and that she had no involvement. Therefore the person who did try to pass the banknote remains unknown. If that's not right, could someone enlighten us both? You stated there is a description of this woman passing the bill. Is the description of this woman available at the NJSP archives?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2019 15:38:01 GMT -5
You stated there is a description of this woman passing the bill. Is the description of this woman available at the NJSP archives?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 1, 2019 8:42:36 GMT -5
You stated there is a description of this woman passing the bill. Is the description of this woman available at the NJSP archives? imgur.com/jWR2C5mFrom the Schwarzkopf press release posted by Michael: "The storekeeper looked at the bill and remarked that it was one of the Lindbergh bills." Now how could the storekeeper know that it was indeed a Lindbergh bill if the bill was grabbed out of his (her) hands before he (she) had an opportunity to check the out the serial number against the list of serial numbers of ransom bills that had been passed out to some banks and merchants?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2019 9:28:55 GMT -5
Now how could the storekeeper know that it was indeed a Lindbergh bill if the bill was grabbed out of his (her) hands before he (she) had an opportunity to check the out the serial number against the list of serial numbers of ransom bills that had been passed out to some banks and merchants? I don't have my file in front of me because I am working on V3, however, I do recall the newspaper sources (perhaps police too but I'd need to search) that actually say the serial was written down. However, one of the numbers was off or something like that and because it was damn near exact to a ransom bill this was chalked up as a possible error. I probably shouldn't be posting without looking it up but that's my recollection. The newspapers appear to be getting their information from the store, the PD in Conn., and/or Schwarzkopf's Press Releases. Doesn't make it a true passing but police were acting as if this event was legit. That could be because it was one of the "first" so that's something to consider too. Anyway, for whatever reason Luf believed someone was saying this woman was actually located so I think at least that's been put to rest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 13:35:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 2, 2019 8:13:44 GMT -5
Much thanks, amy35, for that newspaper story. Now does anyone have access to the bill passer lady's explanation as to how she obtained the ransom bill in the first place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 10:52:00 GMT -5
I also read the column about Condon. Two things stood out: - "(Condon) who tossed the wrapped bundle of currency over a fence . . .(the money was never wrapped - correct? It was just crammed into the box.)
- "money was delivered in such a manner that Dr. Condon never saw the recipients". (thought he did - thought he spoke with CJ.)
So many variations on how events took place concerning the ransom payment and Condon's activities at this time. The public had found out that CAL did pay money and got nothing in return. Condon was finally revealed publicly as the "go-between". The press was publishing just about everything that they were hearing. Plus Condon would offer up over time so many scenarios for the aspects he was involved in plus his own theories. It was crazy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 10:58:44 GMT -5
Now does anyone have access to the bill passer lady's explanation as to how she obtained the ransom bill in the first place? So far as I know, the Connecticut Bakery ransom woman never came forward to identify herself. If I ever find anything about this aspect, you can be sure I will post it on the board!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2019 12:01:49 GMT -5
Now does anyone have access to the bill passer lady's explanation as to how she obtained the ransom bill in the first place? So far as I know, the Connecticut Bakery ransom woman never came forward to identify herself. If I ever find anything about this aspect, you can be sure I will post it on the board! Thanks Amy, that's the best news reported account I've seen on this event. It's interesting that there was some kind of initial discrepancy relating to the second last digit of the serial number. My first question would be, did the proprietor Ella DeCornille actually read the serial number correctly, before the wealthy lady snatched back this suspected ransom bill? Potentially, if she was mistaken, then everything basically comes to a grinding halt, and this becomes a non-event I don't know if there's any way of determining that now. Your thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 13:31:34 GMT -5
Thanks Amy, that's the best news reported account I've seen on this event. It's interesting that there was some kind of initial discrepancy relating to the second last digit of the serial number. My first question would be, did the proprietor Ella DeCornille actually read the serial number correctly, before the wealthy lady snatched back this suspected ransom bill? Potentially, if she was mistaken, then everything basically comes to a grinding halt, and this becomes a non-event I don't know if there's any way of determining that now. Your thoughts? Thanks Joe! That was the most inclusive article I could come up with at the moment. There may be others out there, however. Your point about Ella DeCornille as possibly being mistaken is a good one. Her ability to have recognized so quickly the serial number from such a list was certainly called into question. Here is a segment from a much larger article that appeared in another newspaper on April 12th, 1932. In that earlier article I had posted, it mentions that Ella DeCornille was only at this bakery for two weeks when this bill sighting occurred. Great free publicity for your store, isn't it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2019 7:57:27 GMT -5
Thanks Amy, that's the best news reported account I've seen on this event. It's interesting that there was some kind of initial discrepancy relating to the second last digit of the serial number. My first question would be, did the proprietor Ella DeCornille actually read the serial number correctly, before the wealthy lady snatched back this suspected ransom bill? Potentially, if she was mistaken, then everything basically comes to a grinding halt, and this becomes a non-event I don't know if there's any way of determining that now. Your thoughts? This is a great point Joe and I think one that should be on everyone's mind when considering anything really. But the important thing for me is not to simply dismiss it. The police certainly weren't although, as I posted earlier, that could have to do more about the timing. My guess is they were more "gung-ho" about the first appearances and/or potential passings then as time wore on ... the five passings prove that and later on they felt like they were wasting their time with those investigations. Anyway, its all why I was looking at the "other" ransom bill event that involved a woman to see if these things might be related in some way. Its how all of this must be done in my opinion. Pursue everything and chase down anything you can. The minute one starts making "excuses" for not doing so than it becomes less likely that new clues will emerge. No idea, line, and/or topic should ever be ignored. In the end this might not have been a ransom bill, but by looking more closely at it anyway we are no worse off for doing so. Actually by doing so we learn MORE not less. And I think the post below proves that... In that earlier article I had posted, it mentions that Ella DeCornille was only at this bakery for two weeks when this bill sighting occurred. Great free publicity for your store, isn't it! I received an email from a friend this morning who is having trouble posting and asked me to put their reply to Amy up here: I think you are right, amy35: Mrs. DeCornille's story was likely a publicity stunt for her new bakery because the story she told couldn't have been true. All of the serial numbers of $20 ransom bills published in the press by April 12, 1932, started with at least two zeros (e.g. A 00196927 A), while Ella DeCornille's started with 03.. (B 03387539 A). She must have had one of the booklets that were circulated to banks and post offices at her disposal, likely given to her by an employee, and picked out a serial number at random from a page in the middle. Finding the mystery woman's bill in that booklet of 55 pages on the spot would have required immediate memorization of the number and then several minutes more to actually find it in the booklet. I doubt that the lady would have waited patiently for that to happen. Mrs. DeCornille's most obvious lie was to say that she had discovered the serial number in a newspaper clipping kept on her counter, which just could not have happened.
|
|