|
Post by rick on Feb 11, 2006 8:06:53 GMT -5
It has been reported that $35,000 of the original ransom paid to CJ/Fisch was Gold Certs. These bills were supposed to be easy to spot--thus catching the perps "lickity split". But over two years later BRH was found to have only $15K left? Where did all these Gold Certs get spent? There were reports of Fisch and Fritz laundering these bills in NYC in 1933 but noone seemed quick to turn them in for kidnapping the Eaglet. Why not? BRH bought some shoes, some groceries and some gas and was caught gold-handed--but not until 1934?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 11, 2006 14:19:11 GMT -5
Rick, the money is buried in Summit, N.J. The Junges had roots there. Kathy
|
|
|
Post by ELYSSA on Feb 12, 2006 22:52:25 GMT -5
Saw a special on t.v. a month or so ago that in talking about the ransom, said that alot of Gold notes were passed after Hauptman was put to death, and when the Gov. was notified it was ordered they be destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 12, 2006 23:42:37 GMT -5
remember after Hauptmann was arrested there was poor and basically no accounting of any gold certificates spent or deposited. So we will never know for sure.
Summit NJ of course is the location the confessional Table mentions.
My question is what is the significance of the German involvement in the kidnapping. Isn't it funny that Lindbergh was partial to Germany's uprising in the years to come. Yet it was a German veteran he pointed as the man who kidnapped his son.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 13, 2006 7:27:17 GMT -5
Someone opined a ways back that the ransom Symbol could contain the Waffen-SS Lightening Bolts? If so, that might get the governments attention? One thing is clear, if the Jesus Fisch-Mary Magdalene Vesica Pisces was borrowed from European Christian Churches, it didnt have any "squiggles" in its original manifestation. CAL does seem rather obsessed with things German--especially its women.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2006 8:17:13 GMT -5
Hi Elyssa. The program you mention was on the History channel. They were correct when they mentioned Hoover asked Schwarzkopf what to do and he basically told them to get rid of them. This is in Dr. Gardner's excellent book on the case. If you haven't read it yet then you'll definitely want to get a copy. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977The Governor was the one who, once he discovered this, stepped in and tried to stop it. Hoover had also written to Wilentz who told him the same as Schwarzkopf. Gary, It's a contradiction isn't it? It is to be remembered Lindbergh's first reaction to learning of Hauptmann's guilt was to comment on his physical characteristics. Rick, I don't think Lindbergh was obsessed with the women just the "gene pool" after the War. He was doing his part to help out the Aryan nation.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 14, 2006 0:11:24 GMT -5
To Elyssa All their theories would be void if CJ never recieved 50k, and 15k was given to him to place the blame. This would not be allowed by the guilty party and his supporters.
|
|
|
Post by rick for ellyssa on Feb 15, 2006 12:49:13 GMT -5
Lots of Gold Certs were dropped in 1933. Many reports implicated Fisch and Fritz in the Bronx laundering hot money. {Do we now know who Fritz really is? Robert Aldinger thought it was Fred Aldinger?} Then Fisch paid for his passage to Leipsig Germany with Gold Certs...later testified to by the ticket agent--Steilwig. Apparently, noone was looking very hard for Certs in 1933? If more Gold Certs surfaced "after BRHs arrest" then the whole deal is pretty fishy, because Fisch was dead and BRH is locked up forever. I think CAL/JFC set the whole thing up originally so that the extortion gang would never be caught? Must have been Anna?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 15, 2006 23:37:43 GMT -5
There is still no evidence for any larger payment of marked gold certificates larger than 15-20 thousand dollars, and if it is all that was paid it supports my theory that the smaller sum was paid for the extortionists to accept whatever blame there was.
Joe brought up an interesting experiment that supports the lessor sum of money, as over 5,000 used bills would have over filled the box with the dimensions given.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 17, 2006 18:56:18 GMT -5
Rita, I did some calculations based on the mean average thickness of a modern day American bill, assuming they were of similar thickness for the 1928 series. If the ransom bills had been in uncirculated condition, the 5150 bills should have fit in the specified "packet" (14" X 6" X 7") with about 30% room to spare.
Because the bills were used and had folds and creases, the "bulking" effect created, even when they are banded, can increase the actual volume by 2 to 3 times. So it doesn't seem surprising that Lindbergh had to almost stand on the box lid to try and close it.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 17, 2006 23:10:45 GMT -5
Interesting experiment, and sort of makes me wonder if the confusion at the cemetary was from dividing the loot, and may have already divided some loot with others before that cemetary scene.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 21, 2006 12:22:02 GMT -5
According to Gardner, across the street from where Bruno mostly did his stock trading was a good German restaurant where the fellas hung out, oogled the frauleins, drunk snaaps, AND did a brisk trade in gold certificates. And I assume that meant, trading/selling them for standard greenbacks. So that is a likely source of how some of the ransom money turned-up far away and/or ownd by truly innocent folks.
Hauptman quit work immediately after the ransom was paid and invested/lost large sums in the stock market---he simply had to have gotten the lion's share of the ransom money--which may or may not mean he acted by himself------but he was knee deep in it..........
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2006 15:07:39 GMT -5
Yes, it appears clear Hauptmann had a controlling interest in the ransom payment. My own belief is that others were involved with BRH, but they backed out and forfeited any chance of riches following the unexpected death of the baby. I don't discount the possibility that Fisch was a partner, who hung in there for the extortion phase, and that it was his share found in the garage.
A thought just occured along this line. If Fisch did leave the money to Hauptmann, does this perhaps provide an indication of the original allotment of ransom money, ie. that Fisch was dealt a high(er) percentage of the gold notes in the beginning, due to his wide field of "shady" contacts in which to launder it? The stories of Fisch's attempts to sell hot money around 86th St. may have some real basis in fact and he also would seem to have been a far better conduit for this purpose than Hauptmann.
Hauptmann, being essentially out of spending money when Fisch departed for Germany, could well have been tempted to start spending the gold certificates in his own style, or had received Fisch's approval to do so.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 21, 2006 15:23:59 GMT -5
Joe--somewhere on this site somebody, maybe Rabin?, made a very strong point--if Fisch gave RBH the loot and it got wet and RBH dried it out--what then were the odds he hid them in the exact order of the serial numbers? Remember, just before his arrest they were showing up in the exact order--almost irrefutable logic
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2006 15:40:23 GMT -5
Joe, do you know whether or not exchanging the gold notes abroad was feasible at that time. The answer to that would make a difference to me with regard the idea that Fisch left the money behind. Can anyone actually believe that Hauptmann had all that money openly hanging in baskets in the garage to dry out? Maybe he misunderstood the term laundering.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2006 17:45:14 GMT -5
Rab's argument dissolves Hauptmann's claim that the money was soaking wet ("water running down my arms") and therefore had to be individually separated and dried out before hiding it in the garage. Doing so would have undoubtedly broken the bank-recorded sequence of serial numbers for the ransom payment and made it next to impossible to pass the notes from December 1933 to September 1934, in the original order. Wilentz could have slammed Hauptmann with this bit of logic and clearly showed he was lying here, had he connected on this.
Obviously the original sequence was not greatly disturbed, therefore Hauptmann's testimony about the box having become water saturated in the kitchen closet is a fabrication, at least in that regard.
If the money did indeed show signs of at least being in conditions of high humidity, then we need to look at an alternative explanation. I'm not certain about this condition as it applies to the December 1933 to August 1934-passed bills.
Was this not observed for some of the ransom money passed prior to December 1933, specifically noted as the smell of having been buried in the ground? Hauptmann did not seem to have a satisfactory explanation for the crock dug up from beneath the garage floorboards.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2006 17:56:02 GMT -5
Kevin, I don't know about overseas transactions of American gold certificates after May 1, 1933. Regardless of the foreign bank policies, I would think it would be extremely risky to try and pass them in any location where the details of the transaction would probably be well recalled by someone who didn't see them that often. What are your thoughts on how it may have affected Fisch's decison, if the notes really were his?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2006 19:59:43 GMT -5
The money issue is off my beaten path., but it does interest me. It just seems to me that claim of Fisch leaving money behind could be better put into context if it was determined why he couldn't take it to Europe.
|
|
|
Post by ELYSSA on Mar 21, 2006 21:01:23 GMT -5
I know it was determined at the trial that Hauptmann was guilty of taking ransom money from Condon, CAL and Condon both testified against him. There was testimony that Hauptman had been seen in Hopewell. There was NO evidence that Hauptmann ever had the child, nothing proving the child had been in the car, nothing proving the child had been in Hauptmanns home. Nothing proving Hauptmann had been inside Highfields. I never understood how they could try him for the kidnapping or murder. The most he should have been tried for was taking the money from Lindbergh.(sorry I can't think of the word for that right now) How could someone as high and mighty as Lindbergh let Hauptman be executed for murder and kidnapping if the only thing he knew for sure was that Hauptman took the ransom, better yet WHY? I would have wanted to be absolutely positive that whoever was involved in the murder of my child , all got the same punishment. I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night knowing that there was someone else out there who helped do this to my child. Even if the wood from the ladder matched Hauptmanns attic floor that still doesn't prove he built the ladder, even if his chisel was found at Highfields that still doesn't prove HE was there. These are reasons I don't believe Hauptman was guilty of the kidnapping or murder. These are also the reasons I think CAL was involved, he did all he could to get Hauptmann punished. Then CAL left the country so it would all be finished. If he and his family weren't around, and Hauptmann was dead the investigation would be over and there would be no reason for anyone to question any of it. People would only talk about how the poor Lindberghs had suffered and how Hauptmann got what he deserved. I'm sorry, but I don't think Anna and Manfried deserved any of what they lived with (or should I say lived without). The most Hauptmann should have got was life in prison, that would have allowed more time to be put toward finding the truth and anyone else who was involved. If CAL had been the MAN he was supposed to have been he would have seen to it that Hauptman lived so that one day the truth would come out, but he wasn't a MAN, he didn't want the truth to come out, so he let (helped) the state kill Hauptman, so he wouldn't be blamed, then he ran away like a COWARD. Hauptman having ransom money doesn't make him guilty of anything. Until someone proves exactly where he got the money he isn't guilty of anything he was punished for. This post probably stepped on a few toes, but I think the only way to solve any part of this case is to start with how and where Hauptman got the ransom money and back track from there. For Richard, Anna and Manfried this didn't start March 1 1932, it started the day he was picked up by the police, and they found the money.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 21, 2006 22:28:26 GMT -5
To Elyssa I agree, as none of the evidence presented could have convicted anyone, but convicted Hauptman out of CAL hero worship. Any cabinet maker would know a once over with a sander can change grain points from seven to five in a fraction of an inch. The money doesn't convict either, because he was brokering for others. If Schwartzkopf had not taken a special oath to protect Lindbergh, and the court thought rationaly ignoring the hero, they would have realized there was no real evidence against Hauptman.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2006 8:23:04 GMT -5
What about the possibility of foreign money exchange?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2006 18:57:08 GMT -5
Lindy's ID of Hauptmann's voice was completely bogus and one of his many lies. Condon's ID of Hauptmann was coerced after he refused to ID Hauptmann as Cemetery John on (2) separate occasions.
There is absolutely no direct evidence that Hauptmann was in Hopewell on that night or any other night other then Whited, Rossiter, and Hochmuth all of which are dubious at best.
However, we do have indirect evidence amounting to the ladder (if you believe S-226 and Rail 16 match) and the ransom notes (if you believe Hauptmann wrote them). Neither of these things place him in Hopewell but connect him to the crime and therefore to people who were.
But as always in this case there is controversy concerning these two areas of evidence....
There is no controversy concerning the lot of ransom money in Hauptmann's possession and his enrichment. It's impossible though, for me, to say Hauptmann did absolutely nothing illegal and knew absolutely nothing other then what he told Police about this crime.
And so, like Condon, we must try to seperate Hauptmann's lies from his truths - and it ain't going to be easy....
Kevin, tell me what's on your mind concerning the foreign exchange -
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2006 20:17:38 GMT -5
Michael, I am curious as to the degree of difficulty one would have in exchanging US gold notes in Europe in 1933. Would Fisch, dying from TB leave money behind if he could exchange it in Germany?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2006 16:03:47 GMT -5
There is something to this. I have thought this aloud to myself but I consider that when Hauptmann traveled to Florida the ransom spending stopped and wonder if it wasn't supposed to stop when Fisch left until he returned.... I also wonder if there was a risk, such as Customs or something equivalent catching Fisch with all of this money....maybe there was a fear of this here?
|
|
|
Post by rick for elyssa on Mar 26, 2006 17:46:38 GMT -5
Elyssa, in answer to your WHY and HOW questions. I think it has become more and more evident over the decades that BRH died for CALs sins. After all, CAL ran the entire search for Charlie but he should have stuck with flying, his forte was not kidnapping or recovery. Essentially, CAL failed at gaining the return of Charlie at every single turn by his own Germanesch stubborness and failure to take even the smallest advice from those that knew better right from the first nite in the Nursery. [CAl forgot that when you serve as your own attorney you have an idiot for a client] Someone had to pay for Charlies death (just like 9-1-1) and you dont want to be the last one left holding the ransom money! CAL was forced to rationalize numerous unkind, weird and evil pranks and actions in his life, this just adds to the long list.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2006 18:29:47 GMT -5
Rick, what does any of this, including CAL's practical jokes and his unofficial lead of the initial investigation, have to do with the fact his son was stolen and killed? If Charles Lindbergh ultimately paid heavily for his own misgivings, that's an entirely different matter.
It is becoming more and more evident every day that BRH was involved heavily in this crime and therefore, rightfully executed according to New Jersey law of 1935.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Elyssa on Mar 26, 2006 23:33:33 GMT -5
It is becoming more and more evident every day that BRH was involved heavily in this crime and therefore, rightfully executed according to New Jersey law of 1935. Being involved heavily doesn't make BRH or anyone else guilty of kidnapping or murder. Therefore NO ONE should be punished with death until their involvement and involvement of all other guilty parties is determined, so that all guilty parties get the same punishment.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 27, 2006 0:11:23 GMT -5
Elyssa, I'm not saying that I agree with them, but I don't think you're familiar with the details of New Jersey law, regarding capital cases in 1935.
In the words of Justice Trenchard during his charge to the jury, "If you desire to return a verdict of murder in the first degree, coupled with imprisonment for life, then you must so put it in your verdict, because the law reads that every person convicted of murder in the first degree, his aiders, abettors, counsellors and procurers, shall suffer death unless the jury shall, by their verdict and as a part thereof, upon and after consideration of all the evidence, recommend imprisonment at hard labor for life, in which case this and no greater punishment shall be imposed."
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rick for joe on Mar 27, 2006 8:56:56 GMT -5
Joe...what I was referring to is that IF CAL had followed the instructions of the Nursery Note and the following notes to a "T", instead of his own Don Quixote adventures with Condon as Sancho Panza he might have engineered Charlies return? There isnt one shred or scintilla of evidence, real forensic evidence, that Charlie was killed in the Nursery, or on the Highfields Property, or in Hunterdon County on 1 March 32. Its entirely possible that Charlie was kept alive for one week or so? During that time CAL initiated the largest and most extensive childhunt in history to include Rosner, Spitz, Bitalle, Madden, and thousands of reporters violating every single tenent of a quiet and cautious exchange for the ransom. Was CAL really interested in engineering Charlies return, OR, in fact obscessed with some other complex agenda which directly resulted in Charlies death by scaring hell out of the kidnappers causing them to leave towne.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2006 9:18:59 GMT -5
Its the technicality of the law which enabled them to proceed as they did. Unfortunately, this technical exception called for assumptions not based on the facts.
Then they proceed under a position of "Lone-Wolf" for the purposes of getting a conviction and not for the purposes of what they believed the facts pointed to. They all believed more then one person was involved.
Wilentz and Co. then engage in Witness Tampering, Evidence Manufacture, Hiding Exculpatory Evidence, and Various other Ethics violations of monumental proportions in order to receive what the Jury handed down.
The good Judge himself acted outside the scope of his duties by influencing the Jury.
These are the things that led Hauptmann to the chair. Whether he truly deserved it or not for whatever role he played falls to the wayside of the bigger crimes committed in the process of ensuring it.
If he had been able to live I believe more of what Hauptmann knew would have come out and this crime may have been solved. Maybe the whole idea was to have the case die with him but if that was their intension - then it backfired.
|
|