|
Post by leeforman2 on Sept 12, 2019 0:21:02 GMT -5
Just looking to get to the bottom of this one - Oliver Whateley - as per the FBI Files and Fensch, has him at having dark hair, and a height of 6'8". May be a typo - may be legit. In trying to understand the Gustav Mancke sighting:
- thinning blonde hair [just found where Aaron made the same observation] - Whateley is 6'8" ? - he's going to stand out on that identifier alone - was he 6'8" ?
- What would Whateley be doing hanging out with Sharp - What would he be doing in New Rochelle. How would he even get there without it being noticed?
Quoting Aaron:
"Gustav Mancke may have misidentified Ollie Whateley although Ollie had worked for a woman in New Rochelle prior to his job with the Lindergjhs. Mancke identified the members of the party from photos--with the exception of Isidor Fisch to whom he was personally introduced by Isidor's friend. Manqué described Whateley as a man with "thinning blond hair." Whateley's hair was indeed thinning, but his hair was dark (not blond) according to the official description when he entered the country. Motorcycle photos taken from the scrapbook/diary of Violet Sharp show her in men's clothing on a motorcycle. A second woman is "presumed to be Violet's sister." The woman does not resemble Violet's sister (Edna/Emily); she does look very much like Betty Gow. The man accompanying the two is "not identified," but he does resemble Henry Ellerson. Violet evidently sent the photos to England to be developed as indicated on the reverse side of the photos. (NJ State Archivist). I am not suggesting that Mancke confused Whateley and Ellerson, however. But Gow, Sharp, and Ellerson did spend some time together, probably about late spring or early summer of 1931 before the Lindberghs went on their trip to the Orient and Gow spent three months in the Maine summer home of the Morrows. The three months the Hauptmanns and Hans Kloppenberg spent on their trip to California corresponds almost exactly with the three months the Lindberghs spent on the flight to the Orient."
Attached is a bizarre photo, captioned as being Betty Gow [looks good] and Oliver 'Wheatley' [sic] - using the photo from Dark Corners V1 of Whateley - he does indeed appear to be tall - hard to say if he's 6'8" without a point of reference - but I think this photo - has also misidentified Whateley? If that is him - then he is close to the same height as Betty Gow and the FBI identification has a typo.
Would be useful to know what photos Manke was provided to base his identification on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2019 8:22:21 GMT -5
WOW. 6 foot 8 inches??!!! I can see Whateley being 6 foot maybe a bit taller but I think 6'8" is a stretch and possibly a typo? I have not seen any of his entry documents when he came to America. Might they have his height on those? Here is a picture of Whateley (on the right) along with Betty Gow next to him and Elsie Whateley next to Betty Gow and I believe that is Thomas O'Callaghan on the left end. He was a Morrow houseman and hung out with Charles Ellerson. I apologize for the quality of this picture. It did not reproduce well when I copied it at the archives so it is not real good here, but I was hoping it might aid in some way in showing Whateley's height in relationship to others. imgur.com/2XpdF4U Yikes, apparently they say 6 feet 8 inches according to the FBI summary page excerpt you posted, Lee!
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Sept 12, 2019 8:51:17 GMT -5
More like 5'8" compared to Betty in that photo...
68 inches also works out to 5'8"
No way he was really 6'8" and his height is never commented on in newspaper articles, books, etc.
That would make him taller than Lindbergh!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 12, 2019 16:55:08 GMT -5
WOW. 6 foot 8 inches??!!! I can see Whateley being 6 foot maybe a bit taller but I think 6'8" is a stretch and possibly a typo? I have not seen any of his entry documents when he came to America. Might they have his height on those? Here is a picture of Whateley (on the right) along with Betty Gow next to him and Elsie Whateley next to Betty Gow and I believe that is Thomas O'Callaghan on the left end. He was a Morrow houseman and hung out with Charles Ellerson. I apologize for the quality of this picture. It did not reproduce well when I copied it at the archives so it is not real good here, but I was hoping it might aid in some way in showing Whateley's height in relationship to others. imgur.com/2XpdF4U Yikes, apparently they say 6 feet 8 inches according to the FBI summary page excerpt you posted, Lee! Whateley is abour six inches taller than the women he is posing with in the photo Amy posted. If he were 6'8", that would mean both Betty Gow and Elsie Whateley were over 6 feet tall (gianta for women in that era). There is absolutely no evidence, to my knowledge, of either one of them being extraordinarily tall. So you have to conclude that the Whately height of 6'8" was an error. (Aside from possibly the alleged Manke sighting of Whately in New Rochelle, I can't see how Whateley's height is an issue in the case.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2019 7:39:12 GMT -5
More like 5'8" compared to Betty in that photo... According to Special Agent Brantley's Memo dated 3/12/32 he was 5'8". Lee - who is "Aaron?" I think I might have missed something. Anyway, I have a file on Mancke if there's something specific you are interested in.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Sept 13, 2019 22:21:05 GMT -5
Hi Michael - Aaron was on the boards here for awhile - Aaron picked up on the same thing I did about Whately and New Rochelle.
I am interested yes! I can't seem to find much on this incident - I guess my ulterior motive is trying to work out if the blonde man with Fisch could fit other descriptions [Barr for instance] - and the Manke goofed it. Maybe a big reach.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Sept 13, 2019 22:27:04 GMT -5
Wow that's a great photo Amy - thanks! That looks like it is straight out of a Gman file. It does size Whateley nicely - and great to get an idea as to what Thomas O'Callaghan looked like. That is quite a typo. My cousin is 6'8" - I can tell you from experience - he can't hide. I was sort of hoping that he really was 6'8" - as that would cinch it for me - that if he was seen out in New Rochelle - his height would have confirmed his ID. 5'8 - 5'9' would be so common as to be of no value in that direction. Oh well - still good info!
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Sept 13, 2019 22:29:58 GMT -5
WOW. 6 foot 8 inches??!!! I can see Whateley being 6 foot maybe a bit taller but I think 6'8" is a stretch and possibly a typo? I have not seen any of his entry documents when he came to America. Might they have his height on those? Here is a picture of Whateley (on the right) along with Betty Gow next to him and Elsie Whateley next to Betty Gow and I believe that is Thomas O'Callaghan on the left end. He was a Morrow houseman and hung out with Charles Ellerson. I apologize for the quality of this picture. It did not reproduce well when I copied it at the archives so it is not real good here, but I was hoping it might aid in some way in showing Whateley's height in relationship to others. imgur.com/2XpdF4U Yikes, apparently they say 6 feet 8 inches according to the FBI summary page excerpt you posted, Lee! Whateley is abour six inches taller than the women he is posing with in the photo Amy posted. If he were 6'8", that would mean both Betty Gow and Elsie Whateley were over 6 feet tall (gianta for women in that era). There is absolutely no evidence, to my knowledge, of either one of them being extraordinarily tall. So you have to conclude that the Whately height of 6'8" was an error. (Aside from possibly the alleged Manke sighting of Whately in New Rochelle, I can't see how Whateley's height is an issue in the case.) Absoltutely right. The blonde hair and the height was what I was considering - [plus the distance]. I was hoping he WAS 6'8" and then I would wonder why Manke wouldn't have honed right in on it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2019 8:01:09 GMT -5
Hi Michael - Aaron was on the boards here for awhile - Aaron picked up on the same thing I did about Whately and New Rochelle. I am interested yes! I can't seem to find much on this incident - I guess my ulterior motive is trying to work out if the blonde man with Fisch could fit other descriptions [Barr for instance] - and the Manke goofed it. Maybe a big reach.
Okay thanks. I got a little mixed up and thought you were referring to an author. Here is a copy of the Mancke affidavit below. I saw another version of this in Andy Sahol's collection but it struck me at the time as being the same: imgur.com/L5QhTGdimgur.com/ZihL4QE
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2019 7:38:30 GMT -5
I wanted to get back to something that should be considered and discussed. That is both Mbg and Joe's position that the "trunk money" never existed. Mbg also believes Hauptmann never knew Fisch before he was introduced at the Henkels. I'm not exactly sure where Joe is on that.
One of the most interesting pieces of evidence are those serial numbers on the back of the closet door. I've included this information in V2 in Chapter 5. The sources for what's written there are cited at the bottom of each page so its up to the reader to apply, adjust, dismiss and/or consider everything accordingly. None of it means one has to believe what I do, however, without specific information its hard to come to any informed position. Now, as I wrote, when police originally believed those serials belonged to ransom they were extremely interested. But once they turned out to belong to $500 bills their interest waned and eventually evaporated. Neither Special Agent Genau nor Special Agent Frank considered this money in their reports on Hauptmann's finances. Why not? Next, we have Hauptmann at one time claiming this money came from Fisch in 1928. If that is true he obviously knew him before the crime - just as the police pointed out to him once he made that claim. But he could have been wrong or lying about that date. Next, he could have been lying about where it came from too. Perhaps it did not come from Fisch. But does anyone dispute Hauptmann was in possession of these bills at one time? So - where'd they come from? Certainly not from laundering $5, $10, and $20 ransom bills. So here is obvious proof of a large sum of money not recorded in his books, without any reasonable explanation other than it came from Isidor.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 15, 2019 11:52:54 GMT -5
Well, just for me, purely amateur detective, I go by what a guy says as the only clue. In true crime we're surrounded by many liars, and in TLC it comes down to who knows? Really nobody so we're educating guessing. I'd say Fisch was a place to start thinking though neither he nor BRH seemed capable of raising a 500 dollar bill.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 15, 2019 13:16:11 GMT -5
Hi Michael - Aaron was on the boards here for awhile - Aaron picked up on the same thing I did about Whately and New Rochelle. I am interested yes! I can't seem to find much on this incident - I guess my ulterior motive is trying to work out if the blonde man with Fisch could fit other descriptions [Barr for instance] - and the Manke goofed it. Maybe a big reach.
Okay thanks. I got a little mixed up and thought you were referring to an author. Here is a copy of the Mancke affidavit below. I saw another version of this in Andy Sahol's collection but it struck me at the time as being the same: imgur.com/L5QhTGdimgur.com/ZihL4QEMuch thanks, Michael, for your post of the Mancke statement to law enforcement. Now WHY did Mancke wait until January 1936 to report his sightings of these LKC characters from years previously. Recall that photos and images of John F. Condon, Violet Sharpe, Ollie Whately, Isador Fisch, and others had appeared in newspapers and perhaps newsreels by 1934 (in the case of Fisch) and as early as 1932 in the case of the others. Why the delay on the part of Mancke? Doesn't this harm Mancke's credibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2019 20:31:07 GMT -5
I wanted to get back to something that should be considered and discussed. That is both Mbg and Joe's position that the "trunk money" never existed. I am not at all certain about Hauptmann having "trunk money" either, especially $4,000 dollars of it. Wasn't this trunk one that Anna used a couple times a year for blankets? Wouldn't she have seen that much money in there if it existed? BRH did hide $14,000 dollars of ransom money in the garage that Anna did not know about, so I do allow for the possibility he might have had a hidden stash sometime in the past but not $4,000 dollars worth! I know that Rab included that trunk money when he did his financials on BRH. Without proof of its existence, I don't think it should be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2019 6:43:01 GMT -5
Much thanks, Michael, for your post of the Mancke statement to law enforcement. Now WHY did Mancke wait until January 1936 to report his sightings of these LKC characters from years previously. Recall that photos and images of John F. Condon, Violet Sharpe, Ollie Whately, Isador Fisch, and others had appeared in newspapers and perhaps newsreels by 1934 (in the case of Fisch) and as early as 1932 in the case of the others. Why the delay on the part of Mancke? Doesn't this harm Mancke's credibility? Yes and no. I've got something in V3 that might give you an idea as to "why" one might not come forward. Outside of the usual "fear" of becoming a target, this one in particular had the men staying quiet because they were afraid the Cops would leak their names to the press which would subject them to harassment. But I also agree that the timing shouldn't be ignored either. It's one of those things where you see if something else might either support it or disprove it - or at least that's the approach I'd recommend.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2019 6:52:19 GMT -5
I wanted to get back to something that should be considered and discussed. That is both Mbg and Joe's position that the "trunk money" never existed. I am not at all certain about Hauptmann having "trunk money" either, especially $4,000 dollars of it. Wasn't this trunk one that Anna used a couple times a year for blankets? Wouldn't she have seen that much money in there if it existed? BRH did hide $14,000 dollars of ransom money in the garage that Anna did not know about, so I do allow for the possibility he might have had a hidden stash sometime in the past but not $4,000 dollars worth! I know that Rab included that trunk money when he did his financials on BRH. Without proof of its existence, I don't think it should be considered. It's an important decision to make when considering it. That's why I consider the possibility of the story (or a version of it) and conclude its possible. That doesn't exclude that it could be bogus either. But those serial numbers bother the hell out of me. That closet is where Condon's address was. Now I know he didn't write the phone number but that address is indisputable. So are those serial numbers. Now those numbers aren't connected to the ransom and that was something police made sure of. But being recorded in that closet has significance from where I am standing. It's connected to something illegal for sure, and there's no doubt (in mind at least) that Hauptmann at one time possessed these bills. So considering neither Condon's address nor the money represented by those serials are in any of Hauptmann's books, then I conclude relying soley on that material for proof or evidence of something is a flawed position. Certainly, as Agent Frank wrote, there's no way to prove a secret stash of money with a 100% certainty but those $500s kind of do that for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 7:07:44 GMT -5
Certainly, as Agent Frank wrote, there's no way to prove a secret stash of money with a 100% certainty but those $500s kind of do that for me. I think that's why these serials are hiding in plain site to begin with. Are you saying that those $500s are part of the $4,000 secret stash? Hauptmann was claiming he got those bills from Fisch in March of 1932. And if this is secret money why would you write those numbers "in plain site" as you say, if no one is supposed to know about this stash. Those bills were never found in any trunk or anywhere else in the Hauptmann apartment. These are big denomination bills, Michael. Not the type you take to a market to buy some veggies with and pocket the change. I believe Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other much earlier and those large denomination bills could have come via Fisch through other illegal activities. What about counterfeit money activity? Hauptmann said that those two numbers represented the highest and the lowest from the serial numbers. Wouldn't this mean that there were other bills in between?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2019 9:53:00 GMT -5
Certainly, as Agent Frank wrote, there's no way to prove a secret stash of money with a 100% certainty but those $500s kind of do that for me. I think that's why these serials are hiding in plain site to begin with. Are you saying that those $500s are part of the $4,000 secret stash? Hauptmann was claiming he got those bills from Fisch in March of 1932. And if this is secret money why would you write those numbers "in plain site" as you say, if no one is supposed to know about this stash. Those bills were never found in any trunk or anywhere else in the Hauptmann apartment. These are big denomination bills, Michael. Not the type you take to a market to buy some veggies with and pocket the change. I believe Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other much earlier and those large denomination bills could have come via Fisch through other illegal activities. What about counterfeit money activity? Hauptmann said that those two numbers represented the highest and the lowest from the serial numbers. Wouldn't this mean that there were other bills in between? As you know there were several versions concerning exactly what Hauptmann said. One was "1928" which of course he couldn't have written it there then but I consider he still may have said it. Sometimes people think a specific date for a reason. But his documented reaction when faced with his previous assertions concerning "when" he met Fisch is important as well... the "now I'm in the bag" comment. Again, it may not mean what one immediately thinks it does (or he may not have even said it) but I think it needs to be considered.
As to the $500s... I am using them as an example to show there could have been a hidden stash of some sort. Whether part of the $4000 or some other "stash" makes no difference as it relates to my point. See what I mean? When I originally wrote "in plain site" I was talking about as Researchers evaluating evidence - not that they actually "were" in plain site because being written on the back of a closet door doesn't qualify in that way. And your point about them never being found kind of plays into my point - right? They were in his possession, recorded in the same closet as Condon's address and not anywhere else - but they weren't found after his arrest. That means he either spent them, or never had them in the first place. Which do you believe? I did research on these bills years ago. Bigger bills like $500 and $1000 were used by banks to transfer large sums of money from one place to the next. Having these bills were unusual and I'd suppose getting rid of them might prove difficult. So there's so much food for thought - yet - they seem to be overlooked by everyone despite "hiding in plain site" for us to see. Your other point is one I've considered as well and its good that you brought it up. If so, think about how much more money, in addition to ransom, Hauptmann had his hands on. I think this is part of the reason this whole topic is "avoided" for lack of a better word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 5:55:46 GMT -5
As you know there were several versions concerning exactly what Hauptmann said. One was "1928" which of course he couldn't have written it there then but I consider he still may have said it. Sometimes people think a specific date for a reason. But his documented reaction when faced with his previous assertions concerning "when" he met Fisch is important as well... the " now I'm in the bag" comment. Again, it may not mean what one immediately thinks it does (or he may not have even said it) but I think it needs to be considered. I agree that the use of 1928 was in regards to when BRH and Fisch met, but not the serial numbers. BRH was stating, as it appears in Chapter 9 of TDC V2, that he received the bills from Fisch in 1932. That he put those serial numbers on the door in 1932. I don't see how these serial numbers prove that Hauptmann had a stash of money he was hiding in a trunk in the house supposedly from earlier years. I think these are two different issues. I am inclined that those serial numbers represent some kind of illegal activities being engaged in between Fisch and Hauptmann that had nothing to do with ransom money. Was Uncle Gleiforst ever asked about the $4,000 dollar "trunk stash" he was supposed to have held for the Hauptmanns while they took their California trip? Wouldn't a simple statement from him saying he did hold money for them prove the existence of this "stash"? What exactly do you think this stash represents? Is it money Hauptmann was secretly putting aside from working or do you think it is tied to some illegal activities he was a part of? Since you feel confident it existed, what is your opinion on these secret funds?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2019 7:09:26 GMT -5
I agree that the use of 1928 was in regards to when BRH and Fisch met, but not the serial numbers. BRH was stating, as it appears in Chapter 9 of TDC V2, that he received the bills from Fisch in 1932. That he put those serial numbers on the door in 1932. I don't see how these serial numbers prove that Hauptmann had a stash of money he was hiding in a trunk in the house supposedly from earlier years. I think these are two different issues. I am inclined that those serial numbers represent some kind of illegal activities being engaged in between Fisch and Hauptmann that had nothing to do with ransom money. I am glad we're having this discussion and I think we're in agreement its just more of a matter of perspective... and probably because I'm not as clear as I should be in explaining my position. We both agree that those serials prove Hauptmann was in possession of "at least" two $500 bills - and I agree with you that perhaps even more. Right? No way he's listing serial numbers without the bills in front of him when he's doing it. And yet, there is no other reference to this money in his books or bank accounts because if there was then both Frank and Genau would have referenced and pointed it out. And so, this means the money is "unaccounted for" in the records. Unaccounted for money represents to me - a "stash." After all, where was it located? Bank? No. Log books? No. Hidden away somewhere? Seems very probable. Since we both agree it is the proceeds of illegal behavior then that should highlight my point even further. So, the first step in determining whether or not there could have been a secret stash in the trunk is to show another example and/or situation to prove its possibility. That's what I am doing here. It could be possible he had all kinds of "stashes" but the 4k in the trunk was still a lie. But when we're talking possibilities about hidden money I do not think it even matters because its a safe bet Hauptmann did have money not accounted for and those serial numbers prove that. Not only that but in addition to Hauptmann's actions both before and after the California trip. Was Uncle Gleiforst ever asked about the $4,000 dollar "trunk stash" he was supposed to have held for the Hauptmanns while they took their California trip? Wouldn't a simple statement from him saying he did hold money for them prove the existence of this "stash"? Seems like an obvious course of action for police but I've never found evidence of it. Reminds me of the Fisch story to some degree. I think Hauptmann was pushing the idea that he wouldn't have looked in the satchel. But that's just what I get from the whole thing and I could be wrong. Of course they should have asked him and its frustrating to see they did not - or at least there's no evidence they did. What exactly do you think this stash represents? Is it money Hauptmann was secretly putting aside from working or do you think it is tied to some illegal activities he was a part of? Since you feel confident it existed, what is your opinion on these secret funds? The 4K? If it existed my guess is that it was proceeds of illegal or illegal-type activity. Probably a combination of things to include gambling. Whether it was 4K or 3k or 2k, more, less - is all just guesswork. My gut tells me if it was in a trunk there was a false bottom and it wasn't just covered with blankets as a method of concealment. Anyway, it really doesn't matter "where" it was - just that there is a real possibility it could have existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 7:38:20 GMT -5
Unaccounted for money represents to me - a "stash." After all, where was it located? Bank? No. Log books? No. Hidden away somewhere? Seems very probable. Yes we do agree on some of the points. I think it is the "hidden away stash" that is where we don't agree. Why do you think this money was held on to or "stashed" somewhere just because it was not somewhere to be found. If Hauptmann and Fisch were involved in gambling, money laundering, hot money purchases, counterfeiting, bootlegging or some other form of illegal activities that might revolve around large denomination bills, why would you be keeping this money as a stash? Doesn't money normally change hands and not get tucked away somewhere? If Hauptmann was good at stashing money where it could not be found, then why did he stash the ransom money in his garage where it could be found?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2019 7:48:53 GMT -5
Yes we do agree on some of the points. I think it is the "hidden away stash" that is where we don't agree. Why do you think this money was held on to or "stashed" somewhere just because it was not somewhere to be found. If Hauptmann and Fisch were involved in gambling, money laundering, hot money purchases, counterfeiting, bootlegging or some other form of illegal activities that might revolve around large denomination bills, why would you be keeping this money as a stash? Doesn't money normally change hands and not get tucked away somewhere? If Hauptmann was good at stashing money where it could not be found, then why did he stash the ransom money in his garage where it could be found? I think our disagreement, if we could call it that, has to do with the word "stash." Like anything else, it would grow and diminish but at some point it has to be somewhere. Here we have evidence of money not accountable in any other place. So I submit it was "hidden away" until used, laundered, or invested elsewhere. Probably not all at once but over time - or not. We just don't know. Was there a process? I'd say "yes" but it has to be somewhere before that begins. And the evidence it once existed I think we both agree. But if not for those serial numbers scribbled on the back of a dark closet door its "invisible" money. Well Amy, I'd wager that anyone who went into that garage looking to steal money would have never found it. In fact, police missed it a couple of times before it was finally discovered. And it took Law Enforcement, who were skilled and experienced, specifically looking for a hidden stash to eventually find it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 8:32:29 GMT -5
I think our disagreement, if we could call it that, has to do with the word "stash." Well, stash is usually defined as a hiding place (Noun) or to store secretively for future use (verb). I think both applications are represented in our conversations here. I agree that there was illegal monetary activity involving both Fisch and Hauptmann and the serial numbers are the evidence of that, definitely. Well Michael, If all you thought you had to worry about was Anna Hauptmann, a nosy neighbor or Pinkus Fisch looking in that garage for "a stash", BRH did a great job hiding that money. If Hauptmann knew he was stashing Lindbergh ransom money, which could put him in jail for the rest of his life or worse, you would think he would have stashed this money in the safe place he had stashed other illegally gotten money for future use. He had an alibi planned in case he was ever caught with ransom money on him. Was he really that naïve that he thought the police would not search his home and garage for more ransom money?? There is always this double standard about BRH - he is smart and cunning enough to kidnap, murder and extort money creating the crime of the century back then and yet he is not smart enough to make sure to keep the ransom evidence of that crime in the same safe stash place he had for his other illegal funds.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2019 9:02:45 GMT -5
Well, stash is usually defined as a hiding place (Noun) or to store secretively for future use (verb). I think both applications are represented in our conversations here. I fully agree, and I have no problem using that word. I agree that there was illegal monetary activity involving both Fisch and Hauptmann and the serial numbers are the evidence of that, definitely. I think we should allow room for the possibility it could have come from somewhere else too, but the overall feeling I get agrees with what you've written. Next, consider what I meant by the word "invisible money." Think about that. IF not for those serial numbers imagine if someone suggested it existed otherwise? It would be laughed at wouldn't it? Well Michael, If all you thought you had to worry about was Anna Hauptmann, a nosy neighbor or Pinkus Fisch looking in that garage for "a stash", BRH did a great job hiding that money. If Hauptmann knew he was stashing Lindbergh ransom money, which could put him in jail for the rest of his life or worse, you would think he would have stashed this money in the safe place he had stashed other illegally gotten money for future use. He had an alibi planned in case he was ever caught with ransom money on him. Was he really that naïve that he thought the police would not search his home and garage for more ransom money?? There is always this double standard about BRH - he is smart and cunning enough to kidnap, murder and extort money creating the crime of the century back then and yet he is not smart enough to make sure to keep the ransom evidence of that crime in the same safe stash place he had for his other illegal funds. I don't see the double standard in this example. He had an alibi planned right? It was a quick and simple excuse. Whether it was good or not - it means he thought about it before hand. He had also hidden the money right? So what we do is put ourselves into the situation, ex post facto, then consider what we'd do differently. I'm quite sure Hauptmann did the exact same thing after he was caught. Regardless, that wall safe is anything but stupid - it was a very clever hiding space that most people without experience and a lot of time to search would never have found. The money in the can too. I'm not saying it was fool-proof but what is in your opinion? The problem I see is taking an overall look at these measures then assuming Hauptmann ad-libbed his way through the kidnapping itself. Those two things don't "jibe." But for hiding the money, he decided he wanted it nearby. And that was the judgement call that brought him down. His methods for hiding it were not poor as exemplified by the fact police did not immediately find it. That's not to say it was always where it was found either. The arrest is only a section of time and we shouldn't consider everything they found was a constant. I'm not saying you believe that but its important for me to say it nevertheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 11:09:44 GMT -5
I think we should allow room for the possibility it could have come from somewhere else too, but the overall feeling I get agrees with what you've written. Next, consider what I meant by the word "invisible money." Think about that. IF not for those serial numbers imagine if someone suggested it existed otherwise? It would be laughed at wouldn't it? I am not sure what you mean by "somewhere else". Do you mean another person or another location or what? If I think about it being another person other than Fisch or along with Fisch, then I would be looking at Hans Mueller. His background history as explained in TDC V2 works well for the kinds of activities that revolve around illegal monies. The suggestion of "invisible money" with regards to Hauptmann has come up on this board in the past. You have questioned where the funds were coming from in the events surrounding the before and after of the 1931 California trip. Do you see all those events being funded by "invisible money" or "trunk stash money"? Those serial numbers on the back of the door bring visibility to the fact that Hauptmann had his hands on other funds that cannot be accounted for by regular means. I hope I am stating this correctly. Yes he did think about it. It would have worked too if he hadn't hidden the money in his garage where it was ultimately found. This is, in a round about way, what I was getting at by "double standard". The kidnapping was a well thought out and executed plan. Hiding evidence of this crime in your garage, no matter how clever you think you have hidden it, does not show the same kind of smart planning that the kidnapping did. Yet Hauptmann is supposed to be the master planner/executor of the kidnapping but can't figure out not to keep the ransom money stash near him should he come under police scrutiny? This doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2019 18:34:44 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean by "somewhere else". Do you mean another person or another location or what? If I think about it being another person other than Fisch or along with Fisch, then I would be looking at Hans Mueller. His background history as explained in TDC V2 works well for the kinds of activities that revolve around illegal monies. All of the above. Anything outside of where we'd expect or how others would try to explain it away because it wasn't in is books, bank account, or brokerage account. The suggestion of "invisible money" with regards to Hauptmann has come up on this board in the past. You have questioned where the funds were coming from in the events surrounding the before and after of the 1931 California trip. Do you see all those events being funded by "invisible money" or "trunk stash money"? For me it indicates there is an amount of money somewhere else. So often it is alleged Hauptmann was in financial dire straits because of the sources I mentioned above. Just the upgrade on the housing situation disproves that. So we have to look outside of those sources and conclude a certain amount existed elsewhere. Those serial numbers on the back of the door bring visibility to the fact that Hauptmann had his hands on other funds that cannot be accounted for by regular means. I hope I am stating this correctly. That's my position. It's an example of funds outside of the normal measuring stick. We only know about them because of those numbers written there. What else may have existed where no serial numbers were discovered? So the possibilities are undeniable. This is, in a round about way, what I was getting at by "double standard". The kidnapping was a well thought out and executed plan. Hiding evidence of this crime in your garage, no matter how clever you think you have hidden it, does not show the same kind of smart planning that the kidnapping did. Yet Hauptmann is supposed to be the master planner/executor of the kidnapping but can't figure out not to keep the ransom money stash near him should he come under police scrutiny? This doesn't make sense to me. This is important for me to say to everyone: If you don't feel comfortable with a certain aspect or conclusion then don't let that feeling "go" until you are personally satisfied about it. It shouldn't matter what anyone else believes - if there's still something telling you "it ain't right" then keep it "open" until such time your research eliminates that feeling or it just isn't there anymore.
|
|