Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 8:37:48 GMT -5
In the summer of 1932 while Anna was visiting family in Germany, Richard Hauptmann purchased a brand new, cutting-edge technology Stromberg-Carlson Model 14A Radio Phonograph with an automatic changer, like the one linked here. Apparently, he got himself quite a deal at $396, given it's original value of approximately $800, although he told friends Fred and Marie Hahn he actually paid about $675 for it! Even at $396 though, that amount translates to a present day value of $7,250. Not a bad expression of affluence for a guy who had quit his job a few months before and basically stopped being a professional carpenter, while struggling within his new venture as a stock market investor. www.theradiofox.com/phono/sc14/index.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqe2JD1xUF0
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 7, 2019 10:23:53 GMT -5
Hauptmann bought the radio at the end of April 1932 and had it delivered on May 2. Anna did not travel to Germany until July 1. She was fully aware of that expensive purchase. On April 1, they had $202 in their joint savings account (the money for the mortgage purchase was tied up). Hauptmann's last day of work was April 2. How did Anna think she would be able to afford her trip? Her own wages would not have sufficed to pay for it and pay for living expenses. She either knew of her husband's source of sudden wealth, or she believed whatever he may have told her. When, later on, people in the neighborhood were wondering about their comfortable lifestyle without either of them working, Anna told them that she and Richard had worked hard and saved up enough to live on their savings. She knew that was a lie, so at the least she must have known that their wealth did not come from honestly earned income.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2019 11:22:30 GMT -5
Hauptmann bought the radio at the end of April 1932 and had it delivered on May 2. Anna did not travel to Germany until July 1. She was fully aware of that expensive purchase. On April 1, they had $202 in their joint savings account (the money for the mortgage purchase was tied up). Hauptmann's last day of work was April 2. How did Anna think she would be able to afford her trip? Her own wages would not have sufficed to pay for it and pay for living expenses. She either knew of her husband's source of sudden wealth, or she believed whatever he may have told her. When, later on, people in the neighborhood were wondering about their comfortable lifestyle without either of them working, Anna told them that she and Richard had worked hard and saved up enough to live on their savings. She knew that was a lie, so at the least she must have known that their wealth did not come from honestly earned income. Not exactly true. As I attempted to demonstrate in V2, we have to look at everything. That includes conduct and what was said both before the "kidnapping," and before the ransom was paid - as well as afterward as well. In doing so, we also must look at the California trip. So what did Anna say before that trip? She told Mrs. Wollenberg that they had between $10,000 and $12,000 thousand saved up. Would she have gone on such a trip if she believed they were almost "broke?" Next, if one believes Anna was making this up as a way to invent an alibi for a later crime then I'd like to hear about it. Fact is, what she told Wollenberg was "supported" by Hauptmann's testimony in Flemington. Impossible to know if it was 100% true but we all know he kept money in both the house and in the garage. Furthermore, I do not believe he testified this way because of what Anna told Mrs. Wollenberg.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 7, 2019 13:47:10 GMT -5
I think Mrs. Wollenberg's statement needs to be looked at with skepticism, Michael. She was a good friend of the Hauptmanns'. She likely placed those words into Anna's mouth to make it look as if the couple had been well off even before they went on their California trip. She was being a friend trying to save Richard from the chair. Richard's own accounting, in his own handwriting in his address/note books, contradicts her story as well. On January 1, 1930, they had $7,666 in assets, including the first mortgage, $900 in the bank, and $16 “at home.” By December 1931, their bank balance had dwindled to $76. The Carlton Mott account was a losing proposition as well. In November 1929, Hauptmann had placed $3,000 into it, taking the balance in their joint savings account down to $225. In June 1930 he had to put another $1,500 in cash into the Carlton Mott account to meet his margin, in the process depleting their joint savings account to a balance of around $180. The trunk money didn't exist, either, or it would have been found during the search of their apartment and garage. No matter how you look at it, the Hauptmanns' assets never reached $10,000 before the kidnapping. We also know, from Anna herself, that she was angry with Richard in the winter and spring of '32 for not trying to get a job. Her planned trip to Germany almost didn't materialize...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 15:34:55 GMT -5
Hauptmann bought the radio at the end of April 1932 and had it delivered on May 2. Anna did not travel to Germany until July 1. She was fully aware of that expensive purchase. On April 1, they had $202 in their joint savings account (the money for the mortgage purchase was tied up). Hauptmann's last day of work was April 2. How did Anna think she would be able to afford her trip? Her own wages would not have sufficed to pay for it and pay for living expenses. She either knew of her husband's source of sudden wealth, or she believed whatever he may have told her. When, later on, people in the neighborhood were wondering about their comfortable lifestyle without either of them working, Anna told them that she and Richard had worked hard and saved up enough to live on their savings. She knew that was a lie, so at the least she must have known that their wealth did not come from honestly earned income. Thanks for correcting some of the detail, if I was off on those dates. What is your source for the purchase and delivery date of the 14A? I'd really like to know more about the timing here, as I acquired some of my own information from the Hahn Testimony. In it, Fred claimed that Hauptmann showed him what he called his "old timer" Victrola, during his first visit to the Hauptmann house in mid-June of 1932. This would have been before Hauptmann purchased the new Stromberg-Carlson. Interestingly, it was in that first visit, that Hahn claimed to have seen the two bags, one of which was open revealing a pile of large bills, as they lay on both sides of the Victrola interior when Hauptmann opened it. Hauptmann told him that he "didn't care for that money.." and that some of it belonged to "Fisch," who lived near a church. About a month later Hahn claimed he was invited to the Hauptmann house again to see Richard's new radio and phonograph, which would have put that visit somewhere in the mid-July time frame. Of course, by November, 1934, Hahn could have been off by a bit but he also associated the date of that first visit with the first time he went swimming, ie. warmer weather. If Hahn had actually visited the Hauptmann house for the first time between the date in which Hauptmann still owned the old Victrola and the date he saw the new Stromberg-Carlson, and particularly back further as it relates to your delivery date, then it may well put Hauptmann's connection to Fisch back to where Hauptmann later claimed it to have been.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 19:19:00 GMT -5
I think Mrs. Wollenberg's statement needs to be looked at with skepticism, Michael. She was a good friend of the Hauptmanns'. She likely placed those words into Anna's mouth to make it look as if the couple had been well off even before they went on their California trip. She was being a friend trying to save Richard from the chair. Richard's own accounting, in his own handwriting in his address/note books, contradicts her story as well. On January 1, 1930, they had $7,666 in assets, including the first mortgage, $900 in the bank, and $16 “at home.” By December 1931, their bank balance had dwindled to $76. The Carlton Mott account was a losing proposition as well. In November 1929, Hauptmann had placed $3,000 into it, taking the balance in their joint savings account down to $225. In June 1930 he had to put another $1,500 in cash into the Carlton Mott account to meet his margin, in the process depleting their joint savings account to a balance of around $180. The trunk money didn't exist, either, or it would have been found during the search of their apartment and garage. No matter how you look at it, the Hauptmanns' assets never reached $10,000 before the kidnapping. We also know, from Anna herself, that she was angry with Richard in the winter and spring of '32 for not trying to get a job. Her planned trip to Germany almost didn't materialize... And the California trip, while being such an enjoyment for all three participants, was clearly an exercise in outdoor camping frugality, as exemplified by the detailed trip memorandum and minimal expenses. Perhaps the mother of invention here before a somewhat calculated windfall? Anyway, that sojourn could only be considered a wash when you consider what they would have been spending renting a place they actually had a lease on back in the Bronx for that time. And didn't Hauptmann and Kloppenburg also take their carpentry tools with them? Would any of us find difficult in believing their lot in life might just have changed with a bit of leading good fortune to cement any employment opportunities along the way? I agree with you about the so-called trunk money. It's a wonderful claim that is hard to knock over but in reality, holds little true actual value unless you're prone to giving Hauptmann the perennial bye. As for Anna, she certainly wasn't complaining to Marie Hahn about her closet full of $20 (pushing $400 these days) dresses she showed off during the latter's visit, which ended by Hauptmann telling her he should probably give the missus about $1000 for expenses for her impending trip to Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 7, 2019 19:22:55 GMT -5
The report about Hauptmann buying the Stromberg-Carlson radio on April 29, 1932, making a down payment of $56 and paying the remaining $340 on delivery, is dated September 25/26, 1934, and was prepared by Sgt. Zapolsky. He, Agent Turrou and Det. Monahan had obtained this info from the Manager of the Davega Store. The report does not state the actual delivery date, but I remember reading May 2 someplace (will have to look for it). It was a cash transaction.
As to the Hahns: They both lied. By the time Anna went to Germany, the Victrola was gone. Fritz could not have seen it -- or the money. In 1928, when Anna went back home the first time, the Hauptmanns were still living on Needham Ave, yet Hahn said he saw the money in their new apartment. Hauptmann took great care to hide the ransom money. He would never have let Fritz see any of it.
Not a single person ever saw Fisch and Hauptmann together before the summer of 1932. Even Anna said she met Fisch for the first time after she returned from Germany, which was in October 1932. And where or how would BRH have met Fisch on his own? They moved in different circles until the Henkels introduced them in late July '32, long after the kidnapping. Hauptmann's Fisch story just doesn't hold any water.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2019 19:45:58 GMT -5
The report about Hauptmann buying the Stromberg-Carlson radio on April 29, 1932, making a down payment of $56 and paying the remaining $340 on delivery, is dated September 25/26, 1934, and was prepared by Sgt. Zapolsky. He, Agent Turrou and Det. Monahan had obtained this info from the Manager of the Davega Store. The report does not state the actual delivery date, but I remember reading May 2 someplace (will have to look for it). It was a cash transaction. As to the Hahns: They both lied. By the time Anna went to Germany, the Victrola was gone. Fritz could not have seen it -- or the money. In 1928, when Anna went back home the first time, the Hauptmanns were still living on Needham Ave, yet Hahn said he saw the money in their new apartment. Hauptmann took great care to hide the ransom money. He would never have let Fritz see any of it. Not a single person ever saw Fisch and Hauptmann together before the summer of 1932. Even Anna said she met Fisch for the first time after she returned from Germany, which was in October 1932. And where or how would BRH have met Fisch on his own? They moved in different circles until the Henkels introduced them in late July '32, long after the kidnapping. Hauptmann's Fisch story just doesn't hold any water. I'm far from convinced that the Hahns simply "lied." There is a pretty fine thread of consistency within their testimony, and I'd venture both of them are clearer and more lucid than most I've seen, especially when expressed independently. I have somewhat of an idea how Fisch and Hauptmann may have met before that time frame but it's far from being fully tested. Consider though that contacts may sometimes originate through "streetwise" family members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 21:50:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 21:59:18 GMT -5
Consider though that contacts may sometimes originate through "streetwise" family members. I agree with this, Joe. Hans Mueller was "streetwise". He is the one who secured that Liliput for Hauptmann. I have considered the possibility that Mueller and Fisch might have crossed paths before Hauptmann and Fisch did. It was Mueller who had warned BRH about trusting Fisch. That sounds, to me, like Hans knew stuff about Fisch that BRH did not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2019 8:33:31 GMT -5
I think Mrs. Wollenberg's statement needs to be looked at with skepticism, Michael. She was a good friend of the Hauptmanns'. She likely placed those words into Anna's mouth to make it look as if the couple had been well off even before they went on their California trip. She was being a friend trying to save Richard from the chair. Richard's own accounting, in his own handwriting in his address/note books, contradicts her story as well. On January 1, 1930, they had $7,666 in assets, including the first mortgage, $900 in the bank, and $16 “at home.” By December 1931, their bank balance had dwindled to $76. The Carlton Mott account was a losing proposition as well. In November 1929, Hauptmann had placed $3,000 into it, taking the balance in their joint savings account down to $225. In June 1930 he had to put another $1,500 in cash into the Carlton Mott account to meet his margin, in the process depleting their joint savings account to a balance of around $180. The trunk money didn't exist, either, or it would have been found during the search of their apartment and garage. No matter how you look at it, the Hauptmanns' assets never reached $10,000 before the kidnapping. We also know, from Anna herself, that she was angry with Richard in the winter and spring of '32 for not trying to get a job. Her planned trip to Germany almost didn't materialize... While I can appreciate your position, I don't think it holds water. Hauptmann was still in NY when Wollenberg was interviewed, and the Hunterdon County Grand Jury hadn't even indicted him yet. Also, if Wollenberg was willing to lie to investigators, why don't we see more of that? Whether or not what Anna said was actually true is another matter. But to shrug this off by suggesting she's merely trying to be a good friend doesn't work in the context of everything that was going on - both then and later. Hauptmann's notebooks are a good source. But do they tell everything? That's the key to it. Everyone who likes them to tell the entire story say "yes" until there are things they do not "like." It's why I personally feel Agent Frank's report is the best source. He examined all of the possibilities for consideration, and because of that I think most researchers skipped over it. Either that or they never had the time to find then look at it in the first place. Agent Frank admitted there was a possibility that cash had been stashed. Saying a cache of money did not exist because in September 1934 it wasn't found makes little sense to me. Consider Fisch's safe box at the bank. Once opened it contained nothing but dust. So by your argument that's all if ever contained. Again, that doesn't "work" for me. People get a box for a reason. Items are put in and items are taken out. Take the notation of $17,000 with a superimposed "5" over the "7" in Hauptmann's notebook. Since you trust the books well there you go. That amount " doesn't appear in any identifiable form in any of Hauptmann's accounts...." Even Frank himself conceded it could have represented the $14,600 found in Hauptmann's possession that he claimed Fisch left behind with him. So my point behind this is that you are writing off what even the Government Accountant could not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2019 10:39:04 GMT -5
Consider though that contacts may sometimes originate through "streetwise" family members. I agree with this, Joe. Hans Mueller was "streetwise". He is the one who secured that Liliput for Hauptmann. I have considered the possibility that Mueller and Fisch might have crossed paths before Hauptmann and Fisch did. It was Mueller who had warned BRH about trusting Fisch. That sounds, to me, like Hans knew stuff about Fisch that BRH did not. I suppose Hans may have intuited a bit of Fisch's MO through his own knowledge of the streets, or as you say perhaps he was speaking from more of a personal acquaintance. Hans's familiarity and frequenting of the East 86 St. and Third Avenue corner, during his period of employment there in 1931 and through 1932 at a number of jobs, puts him right in the centre of a target area that Fisch might well have frequented. This based on the statement of Arthur Trost, ie. his introduction to Fisch, through "Fritz" at the billiard parlour at the corner of East 86th St. and Third Avenue, and Trost subsequent comment that he was already familiar with Fisch. Given that Mueller also acquired the Lilliput gun in this same area and Hauptmann eventually met "Fritz" through Fisch, (Dark Corners V3) if nothing conclusive, it seems to point to something significant about that area and also the old adage, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Something tells me it would have been a bit difficult for Hans and Isidor not to have crossed paths and so I don't preclude the possibility of a potential connection between Hauptmann and Fisch existing prior to the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2019 20:30:32 GMT -5
And the California trip, while being such an enjoyment for all three participants, was clearly an exercise in outdoor camping frugality, as exemplified by the detailed trip memorandum and minimal expenses. Perhaps the mother of invention here before a somewhat calculated windfall? Anyway, that sojourn could only be considered a wash when you consider what they would have been spending renting a place they actually had a lease on back in the Bronx for that time. And didn't Hauptmann and Kloppenburg also take their carpentry tools with them? Would any of us find difficult in believing their lot in life might just have changed with a bit of leading good fortune to cement any employment opportunities along the way? I agree with you about the so-called trunk money. It's a wonderful claim that is hard to knock over but in reality, holds little true actual value unless you're prone to giving Hauptmann the perennial bye. As for Anna, she certainly wasn't complaining to Marie Hahn about her closet full of $20 (pushing $400 these days) dresses she showed off during the latter's visit, which ended by Hauptmann telling her he should probably give the missus about $1000 for expenses for her impending trip to Germany. A wash? Joe, I know you read my book so how in the hell could you call that trip a "wash?" He bought his car. He quit his job (that means he's no longer earning). He put his furniture in storage. He took a cross-country trip. Upon return he lived in temporary quarters. He sent his niece $5. He rented a new apartment for much MORE in monthly rent than he had paid at his former apartment. He paid to get his furniture out of storage. Didn't you just reprimand me about economics? Anyway, was he frugal during the trip? Sure. During his Florida trip Anna wanted to go on a boat tour but Hauptmann said "no" because it "cost too much." Anna got upset but Hauptmann would not relent. And this occurred when he's supposed to be flush with cash! So there's certain behavior that seems typical while other things that do not. A major purchase seems (to me) to indicate an unusual event. I would include both the car and the radio among them. Of course that doesn't mean everyone else "has" to or would but I am just stating it from my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 9, 2019 10:26:55 GMT -5
I have the police report where they interviewed the guys who delivered it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 19:49:11 GMT -5
Here is a link to the picture that IloveDFW mentions in her post above. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS256932-Charles-Lindbergh-/91cbc3badcbc42e6a1bf33f64033f4c8/162/0When you look at this picture, you can see that the radio being carried in by the officers is not the Stromberg-Carlson radio Hauptmann bought after the ransom was paid. This is an important point. The caption mentions that this radio is the one that ransom money had been hidden in. This must be the radio Hauptmann owned before he purchased the new one. It is his older Victrola. It is the one Frederick Hahn saw in Hauptmann's apartment the first time he ever visited this home. He was alone at the time he claimed he saw the money. He talks about the top surface of the radio having two sides that could be lifted up to open them. He claimed Hauptmann did this and that is how he (Hahn) saw the paper bags of money. Although Hahn claims this visit took place in June 1932, this is not correct since Hauptmann had his new radio by that time. That this is the old Victrola that Hahn is seeing the money in is made clear on page 7 of Hahn's November 19, 1934 statement in Assistant DA Breslin's office. Here is the exchange between BRH and Hahn that establishes the radio is the old one: Q(Breslin) - How did he happen to open it up? A(Hahn) - Because I ask him, "What is this?" I said, "This is an old time Victrola. "Yes", he (BRH) said, "this is an old timer.", and he told me where he got it from but I don't remember." Q(Breslin) - And then he opened it up? A(Hahn) - Yes and then he opened it up. In his 28 page statement, Fred Hahn is very clear that Hauptmann told him he was minding the money for Isidor Fisch. Hahn sees this money in the old radio which means it was in April 1932 before the knew Stromberg-Carlson Radio was delivered. This also shows that Hauptmann and Fisch knew each other before July 1932. I believe Hahn was confusing his second visit to Hauptmann's apartment in June 1932, the one he made with his wife Marie, when Anna showed Marie the dresses she bought for the trip to Germany she would be taking in July, as his first visit alone to Hauptmann's apartment. It was troubling to those questioning Hahn at the time his statement was taken that he was claiming he saw this money in June 1932 because the money was clearly in the old Victrola when Hahn saw it. The Hahns were never called to testify at Hauptmann's trial.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2019 8:42:38 GMT -5
Here is a link to the picture that IloveDFW mentions in her post above. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS256932-Charles-Lindbergh-/91cbc3badcbc42e6a1bf33f64033f4c8/162/0When you look at this picture, you can see that the radio being carried in by the officers is not the Stromberg-Carlson radio Hauptmann bought after the ransom was paid. This is an important point. The caption mentions that this radio is the one that ransom money had been hidden in. This must be the radio Hauptmann owned before he purchased the new one. It is his older Victrola. It is the one Frederick Hahn saw in Hauptmann's apartment the first time he ever visited this home. He was alone at the time he claimed he saw the money. He talks about the top surface of the radio having two sides that could be lifted up to open them. He claimed Hauptmann did this and that is how he (Hahn) saw the paper bags of money. Although Hahn claims this visit took place in June 1932, this is not correct since Hauptmann had his new radio by that time. That this is the old Victrola that Hahn is seeing the money in is made clear on page 7 of Hahn's November 19, 1934 statement in Assistant DA Breslin's office. Here is the exchange between BRH and Hahn that establishes the radio is the old one: Q(Breslin) - How did he happen to open it up? A(Hahn) - Because I ask him, "What is this?" I said, "This is an old time Victrola. "Yes", he (BRH) said, "this is an old timer.", and he told me where he got it from but I don't remember." Q(Breslin) - And then he opened it up? A(Hahn) - Yes and then he opened it up. In his 28 page statement, Fred Hahn is very clear that Hauptmann told him he was minding the money for Isidor Fisch. Hahn sees this money in the old radio which means it was in April 1932 before the knew Stromberg-Carlson Radio was delivered. This also shows that Hauptmann and Fisch knew each other before July 1932. I believe Hahn was confusing his second visit to Hauptmann's apartment in June 1932, the one he made with his wife Marie, when Anna showed Marie the dresses she bought for the trip to Germany she would be taking in July, as his first visit alone to Hauptmann's apartment. It was troubling to those questioning Hahn at the time his statement was taken that he was claiming he saw this money in June 1932 because the money was clearly in the old Victrola when Hahn saw it. The Hahns were never called to testify at Hauptmann's trial. Amy, that might well be the Brunswick Super-Heterodyne Radiola in the photo, (combination Radio and Victrola) the "old timer" which Hauptmann gifted to the Muellers when he got the new Stromberg-Carlson. Apparently, the radio was removed to make way for a sewing cabinet for Maria and the Victrola was kept intact. (Their Fifteen Minutes, Falzini, pg. 37) Can you post the photo as I couldn't locate it? I also believe now that Hahn got his dates confused with certain events, and that his clearly stated recollections certainly seem to have Hauptmann and Fisch knowing each other well before the previously-accepted date. I believe Maria Mueller alone visited Anna Hauptmann when Anna showed her the dresses. That was the visit where she felt uncomfortable when Richard came home that evening. Later on, both Fred and Marie visited the Hauptmann house on their way home from Rye Beach, and I believe this was the visit where Richard showed off his new Stromberg-Carlson.
This doesn't really fit in here, but it doesn't seem possible that Hans Mueller could have been the "lookout" at St. Raymond's. He had just started that new job as waiter at the York Bar & Grill at the end of March 1932 and claimed he worked the night shift (7 pm to 7 am) with no time off for the first fourteen or so days. I'm not aware of any report that substantiates that claim though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 8:04:54 GMT -5
Amy, that might well be the Brunswick Super-Heterodyne Radiola in the photo, (combination Radio and Victrola) the "old timer" which Hauptmann gifted to the Muellers when he got the new Stromberg-Carlson. Apparently, the radio was removed to make way for a sewing cabinet for Maria and the Victrola was kept intact. (Their Fifteen Minutes, Falzini, pg. 37) Can you post the photo as I couldn't locate it? Joe, I do not have that photo in my file at this time. Although I have looked at some of the photos available at the archives (there are quite a few!), I still have many to look at. Michael, do you have the photo that Joe is looking for? If so, could you post it please. I do not think Mueller was the St. Raymond cemetery look out either. According to Hans Mueller's October 11, 1934 statement he claims, as you state above, that he had no time off the first 14 days. He said his first day off was April 11th, 1932. I cannot say whether or not there is such a report fact checking Mueller's claim concerning his first day off. I will certainly do some checking on this! Mueller was out of work at the time of the kidnapping. He didn't start work at the York Bar and Grill until mid-March 1932. Similar to when Hauptmann started working at the Majestic Apartments!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2019 7:42:30 GMT -5
Michael, do you have the photo that Joe is looking for? If so, could you post it please. Not sure if I have that one. There is one I have in mind but can't find it. When it comes to the photos at the NJSP Archives Amy is so right. There are the picture binders but after that there are so many other places they could be.
|
|
|
Post by Don Pettee on Aug 14, 2021 12:39:41 GMT -5
It's funny how the web can take you places you weren't expecting ....the Kidnapping has always interested me what actually brought me was the Stromberg Carlson 14A radio phonograph ( it is in fact a 1930 model) that might be why you see two amounts on introduction it was $645 ,in 1932 the price of $390 could be correct as the depression had worsened by then
The other radio Victrola was at that time based on the picture 1923-24 ....I believe the reason he referred to it as an " old timer" was at the time it was made radios didn't plug into a wall outlet ,but used batteries as for the money being inside one of the kids the thing to remember is that the are under the lid is only about 5 or so inches deep and would not hold any really large items currency' etc ....inside the lower cabinet ( in back) yes ......regards Don
|
|