|
Post by sue75 on Oct 5, 2007 21:56:24 GMT -5
www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=33081 The second section of Bates’ book presents stories of Americana. “No Schtick Nose in Dat ‘Ting” is the tragic story of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder trial, which haunted the author’s family until they died. Her people sincerely believed the wrong man, Richard Hauptmann, died in the electric chair for the crime. Bates tells a riveting story of how and why they planned to intervene in Hauptmann’s trial and why they did not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2007 5:41:54 GMT -5
Good post Sue - I think I'll have to add this book to my collection soon. A couple of comments concerning the excerpts....
She got the names right. Izzy and Dick. These were the names known to most others - so if this is recollection then it supports her. But it could be research which revealed this (or refreshed her memory).
I think her dates are off. While I am a believer the two of them knew each other prior to March 1st, I haven't seen any evidence of a fur partnership in 1929. However, if you recall the 1000 bill serials written on the closet door were attributed to monies given to Hauptmann by Fisch prior to 1932.
The other thing is how overly friendly and talkative Hauptmann was towards the family. It could be that he felt comfortable and around close friends he was like this but mostly his personality was quiet and reserved. It seems rather unlikely that he was this outgoing here.
I am going to have to get the book, read it, then digest and cross it with the reports to see what I believe and what I don't.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2007 7:04:31 GMT -5
Sue, an interesting article and there may be some truth to it, but it does sound chronologically out-of-synch.
Eva Bates claims the only time she saw Dick and Izzy was on that one occasion, on a cold winter day. The year of the meeting is confirmed later on as she relates the family moved to a new farm on Rancocas Road during the winter of 1929. Dick also claims he had come to America five years previously which more or less lines up with his November 1923 arrival, give or take a year. But she also claims to have seen a boxy dark green car which she implies belonged to Dick. It could have been a borrowed car, but we know Hauptmann didn't have his own vehicle then, so this may be an attempt on her part to connect one "later dot" to solidify an earlier account.
Dick also claims to have been laid off from his carpenter job when we know he was gainfully employed as one at the time and he would seem to have had little need for moonlighting as a furrier. There's also a lot of detail for an eleven year old to have remembered from one meeting, although she does state that other family members filled her in later on some things. Again, maybe some of the dates got transposed here.
It does seem to be a very early date for a Hauptmann and Fisch affiliation, and reminds me a bit of J.R. Russel's account about meeting Hauptmann in 1929. And how does this kind of relationship go totally unnoticed by friends and acquaintances of both Hauptmann and Fisch for over two years prior to March of 1932? Would the police have been able to do this good a job at evidence supression? There is also Hauptmann's initial response to police questioning that he had met Fisch in 1930 or 1931, considering his immediate reaction to his own admission, "I guess I'm in the bag now." Maybe there is more to digest here.
Michael, what is the source for your information that the $1000 was given to Hauptmann by Fisch prior to 1932? This is the first time I've heard this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2007 15:57:01 GMT -5
I stand corrected....they were supposed to have been $500 bills: When he was shown the serial numbers and the figures 1928 he said that represented some money, probably a $500 bill, which had been given to him by Fisch; that someone said to him, "You have already said you didn't know Fisch until 1932", and he made the following comment: "Well, I'm now in the bag." I stated this should not be given publicity, and Mr. Clegg states they claim it will receive none." (Hoover to Tamm 9-25-34) hometown.aol.com/mmel71/images/door.jpg
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 11, 2007 7:29:51 GMT -5
Ok , I have to ask this. Why does someone record U.S. currency serial numbers? And why on a door ? What's Hauptmann really up to here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2007 14:57:32 GMT -5
No idea but to say this is how Hauptmann was. He was a record keeper so perhaps the serials were a means of keeping records...meaning there were others recorded elsewhere.
It was on the back of the door. Perhaps as a method of concealment. One has to ask why they weren't reflected in any of his logs. Anna noted he was in the "habit" of jotting things down on mirrors, walls, etc. I don't think this makes sense as it relates to these specific figures.
Well since you asked.... I wasn't going to say this but I have been under the impression for quite some time this $1000 represented an advance for his involvement in the crime. If one wants to offer an alternative theory then perhaps the fruits of some other crime. But it seems to me to be something he didn't want anyone else to know about which is why he recorded it where he did. I highly doubt that he had the serials but not the bills - so his explanation - that Fisch gave him the money seems to bolster the position he actually did have this money in his hands since he doesn't deny possession.
The Police upon discovering these serials all originally believed they were ransom but later discovered they weren't. I think they asked him a little about this during his multiple interrogations but seemed less interested upon learning they weren't ransom serials.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 11, 2007 16:18:08 GMT -5
I guess I keep missing the point of these details because they simply make no sense to me. What is the point of recording the serial numbers of bills, let alone on a closet door?? I don't know about everyone else, but I have recorded many things in my life but have never had the need to record a serial number from a currency note. Think about this for a moment. What does such an action provide? The only reasons I can think of to do this are; 1) To be able to trace a note just as was done with the LKC ransom or 2) To check the note against a list or record of serial numbers. I can't think of why Hauptmann would be attempting to trace a note so I assume it must be the second option. But why and what list? Was there other hot money he was handling?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2007 5:20:52 GMT -5
I think this might be something to pick Rab's brain about. I do see your point here and it doesn't make sense. But taking into account all known facts there has to be a good reason. Something comes to mind here that might be important to the discussion....then again, it might not. What's worse is that I cannot remember the source and I tried this morning to find it and cannot so it must be applied accordingly until such time I snap out of this fog and remember.... As I remember, the higher denomination bills, 500$, 1000$, 10000$, etc. weren't meant to be in general circulation. They were mainly used by the banks as a means for cash transfers. Sometime in the late 60's the Mint realized even the banks were no longer using them and so they were discontinued for good. I've also found sources saying it was done in an effort to combat organized crime.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 12, 2007 6:53:41 GMT -5
Michael
I think that's the single most important fact to remember. There usually is a reason for all human actions and the details hold the explanation. So what gives cause to write down the serial number of a bill on a closet door? Actually I think this is a bit of mis-direction, though probably unintended. Notice that most of us are immediately drawn to the issue of the closet door. In fact it is probably far less important as to where the number was written , the real question is why. What does this action provide?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2007 9:56:19 GMT -5
This makes for an interesting read... The Treasury Department has published a booklet entitled, "Money Laundering: A Banker's Guide to Avoiding Problems," which contains a list of suspicious activities that the Treasury Department says fit the profile of a "money launderer." These activities include: 1) Paying off a delinquent loan all at once; 2) Changing currency from small to large denominations.... www.occ.treas.gov/moneylaundering2002.pdfWith the Lindbergh ransom it appeared most of the bills were being spent one at a time in order to make change. However, if Hauptmann is in possession of (2) $500 bills before the kidnapping (or even after) it suggests, as per the booklet above, he (or someone close to him w/ his knowledge) was laundering smaller sums for these larger bills - that way many "hot" bills could be dumped at once for clean cash.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 13, 2007 15:56:05 GMT -5
I can easily believe Hauptmann was up to something besides the kidnapping, but I still don't see the reason for recording the serial number. What value would such an act provide and to whom?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2007 9:24:13 GMT -5
I've been thinking alot about this ever since you brought up the question. Perhaps my brain isn't processing it right. I keep thinking about it from the "cop" angle. For this reason I am just going to "go" with it....
I've come up with some possibilities which include a main explanation and a secondary one. Again, this is just thinking out loud here.
When the Police, record the serial numbers on currency its known as serialization. So I ask myself why do they do this and how does it benefit them? My answer is obvious as it relates to this case - it allowed them to verify ransom money. Ransom money is technically "buy" money which is used so often today in drug related cases.
So why wouldn't the same apply to someone engaging in illegal activity? It seems to me that someone recording the serial #'s would do so in order to verify the bills in question at some point in time in the future. In this case, someone wouldn't be able to flash a $500 bill to Hauptmann (or otherwise) and say it was the same bill in question.
The secondary point may relate directly to the first. I thought about Wendel, and the man who worked at Majestic Apartments both being involved in counterfeiting. A Counterfeiter (back then) made plates. These plates were used to make multiple copies of the fake money. Problem is, all bills made from the same plate had the exact same serial #'s on them as well. It could be Hauptmann had recorded the serials for this purpose, that is, to ensure the money he had (2) $500 bills weren't counterfeit.
One thing for sure, if Hauptmann is engaging in recording serial #'s at any time before his arrest it means he knew the benefits of it. Therefore, it complicates the matter of him spending ransom money without any regard for capture knowing the serials on that money had been recorded and was being actively searched for.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 14, 2007 11:44:21 GMT -5
I was thinking along similar lines. It seems to me that the only reason for Hauptmann to perform this odd task of serialization ( thanks for giving it a name) would be for the purpose of checking that bill against a list or a another bill. I think your idea about counterfeit bills makes sense, though I have always thought that counterfeiters generally stuck with smaller denominations. I also wondered if there was another crime around that time in which large denominations were stolen or exchanged. I think this is a great example of the importance of seemingly insignificant evidence which to some degree gets brushed aside and yet can, through thorough analysis provide an important piece of the puzzle. It was obviously important enough for Hauptmann to take the time to do, so it's probably worth the time to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 15, 2007 5:31:18 GMT -5
Forgive the randomness of this, but some thoughts:
- Is there some evidence that these bills were actually $500 bills? I know they are always referred to as such but don't recall actually seeing a report that verified that.
- The 1928 presumably refers to the year of the bills. Though I suppose it could also refer to the year that the bills came into his possession, which raises an intriguing possibility about other crimes committed that year.
- Since the Hauptmanns only moved into that property in 1931 it implies the bills only came into his possession then or later. So the timeline for him having written them there is anything from 1931 to 1934. We can't assume these were bills he had pre-kidnapping, at least I don't see any evidence of that. We know that they weren't ransom bills but Hauptmann did move money around between his accounts post-March 1932 until 1934 and often made large deposits and withdrawals so there is every possibility these bills could have come from one of those occasions.
- I will try to look at Hauptmann's bank deposit slips over the next few days to see if there are any that show $500 bills. Often the demonination information on the slips wasn't filled in properly so might be difficult to tell.
- I think Hauptmann was a serial (forgive the pun) record keeper. He kept all sorts of records, often transcribing the same seemingly random notations from one notebook to another for no apparent reason. So that he would make this notation I don't find unusual but I agree that he would have made it for a reason.
- That this represented some form of downpayment I find hard to believe in the absense of any evidence of when the bills were actually in his possession. We have a three year window and he could have had them at any time in that period. That large amounts were in Hauptmann's possession post-March 1932 is undeniable so it seems to me more logical that if he had bills of high denomination, it was in the latter part of the timeframe rather than pre-March 1932.
- I'll offer another possibility for why he might have recorded the numbers. The assumption seems to be that he recorded the numbers because he was given the bills. I think a more likely explanation in the context of Hauptmann's record keeping is that he recorded them because he was giving the bills to someone else. We know that Hauptmann loaned money to people at interest - including Anna's brother - so perhaps these represented bills he had actually given to someone else and so therefore wanted a record of them. Don't know, just a possibility.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 15, 2007 7:12:22 GMT -5
There is lots of interesting information on serial numbers of old denomination bills etc at the following site: www.uspapermoney.info/serials/allhigh.htmlI don't believe there is any way to prove these serial numbers were $500 bills. I know we have the $500 notation above the numbers. Serial numbers are only unique within the denomination and type of note. They aren't unique universally. So there could be another Federal Reserve note, issued in New York (hence the B at the start), the first print run (hence the A at the end) but of a larger or lower denomination. Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2007 7:43:18 GMT -5
Those are very good points, Rab. Let me ask this, I have heard numerous times that the casing (trim) at the top of this door was loose and thus a space for concealment was accessible. Is this true? I only ask because of your point about Hauptmann's mania for recording numbers. If that bill was "stored" in the space behind the door trim it would make some sense that he might take it out and record the number on the door. I still don't see how recording the number provides any utility to him, though.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 15, 2007 11:45:48 GMT -5
Kevin, I too have heard about a supposed hiding place. However, seems to me to be difficult to prove because the authorities removed many of the casings, skirtings etc in the hunt for money so who is to say what was removable before they started. I have a vague recollection of Hauptmann admitting to a hiding space there but that might be my imagination running away with me.
In terms of why he would record the numbers, as I've said, he recorded many things that to me defy rational explanation. I just think that if he was loaning this money to someone, then perhaps he wanted a record of the serial numbers in case of dispute over the amount later. However, why he would think it better to record them on the back of a door rather than in one of his many notebooks eludes me. It does imply something sinister about it, that he was trying to hide something, whether due to illegality or just from Anna.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2007 7:33:30 GMT -5
I could search the reports for such a verification, however, I don't remember ever seeing any absolute. But considering what was written there and now this great web-site you've provided us, then I think its a safe bet.
And so considering they were $500, then I think this itself is important.
This is also very important. He was basically "homeless" after he left for California. When he returned he stayed in a temporary situation then to the Rauch house. I am thinking he could have come into the possession of these bills anytime shortly before the trip. The date on the bill itself seems irrelevant.
Great posts.... I am going to look into a few things to see if they mesh with these new thoughts....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 16, 2007 9:40:57 GMT -5
I wonder if the use of the "ditto" hash marks indicates that a longer list of serial numbers was anticipated and for some reason not completed. It doesn't make sense to use that for the sake of a letter. I suppose it's possible that the writing of these numbers provided some sort of self gratification over the possession of the relatively incredible large cache of money, but I wonder if there isn't another purpose to this effort. I have a hard time with the theory that the numbers are a form of a receipt, that just doesn't seem viable to me. I am guessing that there was a need to check these numbers against something or identify them for some reason against other bills.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2007 9:54:18 GMT -5
I was originally struck with this thought.....
Say you are hired to do a job that pays $1000. You know this person is paying two other people the same amount. You receive (2) $500 bills and you become suspicious of those bills. You write down the serials in order to compare them against the other (2) people who also received the same amount.
Its what I would do - especially if the event wasn't on the level.
I totally agree with Rab concerning Hauptmann's record keeping. The fact these serials/bills aren't reflected in his logs reveal more valuable information. It shows there were monies unrecorded and unaccounted for which was not ransom.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 16, 2007 14:42:28 GMT -5
I know I've posted something of this before-excuse if I repeat too much. I can't let go of Noso's possible involvement. Recall that he asked Uncle Denny Doyle if there was anything incriminating in Condon's background. Why? Was it something to hold over Condon's head with him acting as go-between? I would say Condon had to have known (at some point) Noso was shopping for kidnappers, from either Denny or Denny's mother. Were Condon and Denny's family being threatened throughout- even anonymously? Was the woman who purportedly went to Condon and begged and implored over something or other, Denny's mother? It makes sense to me that despite Condon's grandiosity of saving the baby, he was also running scared. It seems to me that the combination of the two could go a good way in accounting for all the contradictions/lies he told. =================== As you all are discussing money serial numbers, we can keep in mind that Noso was said to be a counterfeiter =================== Does anyone know why Noso was in prison? =================== Any thought to offer as to whether there were 2 "cem Johns"- a different one at each of the 2 cem meetings? =================== Something else I've toyed with:
Alexis Carrel - scientist and eugenicist v Noso - forger, counterfeiter, fur business v kidnappers - a Fisch look-alike says "science is more important than---" v Lindbergh baby - Health less than perfect(?)
I, too, believe there was something worse wrong than Rickets and hair nodes
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 16, 2007 16:40:44 GMT -5
Michael
Would you then carry the door around or ask the "others" over with their bills? I don't know, I just can't seem to shake the thought that something else is afoot here. I get the feeling Hauptmann is compiling a list for some other reason. I also wonder if these numbers are actual serial numbers or a variation of the number known only to Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 17, 2007 4:31:52 GMT -5
Interesting observation on the ditto marks. Perhaps that again raises the possibility that these weren't $500 bills but a truncated list of bills that amounted to $500? He started writing out a list that added up to $500 but stopped for some reason???
Here's some other complete supposition: Hauptmann loans the two bills to someone as "flash" money i.e. for the purpose of that person appearing to be in the money, to smooth a deal, something of that nature. But he wants the specific bills back because he himself is concerned about counterfeiting. So he records the numbers to make sure he gets the correct bills. A stretch, I know, because it still makes sense to put them in a notebook that he could carry around with him.
Hauptmann recorded lots of seemingly random things. Or things that at least appear random in retrospect. But he must have had some reason to record these at the time.
As to them being something other than serial numbers, I don't see that. They are the correct format, correct number of digits. Not entirely convinced they are $500 bills but I think they are real serial numbers.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2007 5:41:39 GMT -5
Bigamy. Unfortunately very common back then. (I've noticed in the files many cases of men who would marry, have children, then when they got tired of taking care of their families would take off to start new ones elsewhere.)
Remembering that Hauptmann loaned Hager the money to buy Arnold's shop. According to August Reiger there was at least one "big" bill, "$50; one, two, or three....."
I'll look into this more especially because I believe Siglinde mentioned something 'funny' about this which I hadn't noticed myself.
This is a damn good thought.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 17, 2007 7:39:54 GMT -5
What I meant was that the numbers written were altered in some way ( reverse order , etc). I checked the numbers against the ransom bill list and couldn't find anything, though. One thing that did occur to me while checking the list was that the numbers written on the door are "totally clean". By that I mean I could find no match with any part of the serial numbers. I wonder if this was an attempt to "clean" some of the ransom money by altering a serial number. The counterfeiting angle is interesting, but would anyone risk counterfeiting a large denomination note?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 17, 2007 9:02:02 GMT -5
I'm no expert, but I think the approach on counterfeiting generally is to do it in bulk and at lower denominations. I think trying to counterfeit $500 bills would be a fool's game because a bill of that denomination is going to come under extra scrutiny, as Keven suggests. I think if you're serious about counterfeiting, you do it for $1, $5, $10 bills. Particularly in the 1930s when $10 went a long way.
Let me suggest a potential timeline for this, based on nothing more than co-incidence. On February 26 1933, Hauptmann withdrew $500 from his Mt Vernon account. The following day he withdrew $500 from his Central Savings Bank account. While his withdrawals from CSB were usually by way of cheque, there is nothing to say he couldn't have cashed the cheque or taken cash on that occasion. I'd have to check the slips. May not be connected. At times in 1934 he did withdraw large amounts from his accounts but none exactly $500 (or $1000 for that matter).
The only other possible connection I can see was $800 withdrawn from CSB on December 7 1932 and $500 from Mt Vernon on December 12 1932. This might have been a withdrawal in support of the cash purchase of the second mortgage shortly thereafter. However, that's doubtful based on a $1,287 deposit to CSB on January 10 1933 i.e. what could be the same money re-deposited so not spent on the mortgage. But perhaps if Hauptmann was keeping large demoninations in the house as payment of the mortgage he wanted to record the numbers. Perhaps he was afraid of robbery!
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 17, 2007 14:18:23 GMT -5
Who better to fear thievery than a thief?
I was thinking a little about the logistics of Hauptmann's laundering or outright spending of the ransom money. It seems that he is inclined to keep the money in multiple locations with different levels of accessibility and security. I wonder if he was taking certain amounts and keeping them at hand or in the apartment as needed while leaving the rest hidden in the garage. If so he may have had a secure location, such as the space behind the door casing in which he kept both ransom money and "clean" cash. The writing on the door may have been a result of the need to identify the non-ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2007 15:54:50 GMT -5
Just to follow up on my previous post.... Siglinde first mentioned to me the fact that John Hager had approached Hauptmann for a loan on the advice of Karl Arnold and that something weird happened. [Hager]: Well Arnold ask me me about Hauptmann to ask him for the money and first time he tell me "I have no got any money now, but if I can help you may be later on." So I ask him 14 days later.
[Breslin]: When was that?
[A]: That was the end of May.
[Q]: End of May 1933?
[A]: Yes, and I tell him, "Richard can you help me now? I like to buy the business from Carl Arnold." He said, "Well John I think you good. I give you the money but I give you the money for mortgage." He said, "Go down the lawyer and fix everything up and give me this, bring me mortgage and you get money." So on the 6th of June I buy the business. He say to me, "Come up to the stock office on 86th Street and take the money." and so that morning I went up and was waiting for him in the stock office and he comes and he said, "All right John, you got everything ready from the lawyer?" I said, "Yes." And give me four one hundred dollar bills and I go with this money right in Arnold's business and paid him the money and he give me my receipt. As anyone who has been involved in researching this case knows - Siglinde is one of the best minds around when it comes to the Lindbergh Kidnapping.... When we were discussing this her point was why Hauptmann didn't have $400 "available" during this time-frame. It's an interesting question due to the J.J. Faulkner exchange as well as the other ones only days before. What occurred that freed up this amount and what didn't that he had no money available the first time he was asked? My secondary point is that he is handing over (4) $100.00 bills to Hager. I would expect either a check or a bunch of smaller bills.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Oct 18, 2007 4:49:04 GMT -5
The Hager thing is interesting but doesn't really tie up with the view that Hauptmann didn't have money at the time. He had money on deposit at CSB and at Steiner Rouse and he also made a series of cash deposits during that timeframe. On April 28 1933 he deposited $2,500 at Steiner Rouse, on May 3 $2,575 to the same account and on June 5 $2,225 to the same account. I suppose it could be argued that this was money from Fisch rather than his own money but I don't see any evidence of that. In my opinion it was Hauptmann taking advantage of the gold certificate redemption and cleaning lots of money at once. For what it's worth, I don't see a $400 withdrawal from any of Hauptmann's account at any time, though $373 was withdrawn from Steiner Rouse (i.e. the brokerage house at 86th Street) on July 7 1933.
I do like Kevin's thought that Hauptmann could have been hiding both ransom and non-ransom money in the same place and therefore needed some aide memoire to distinguish the bills and so wrote the serial numbers of the non-ransom bills on the door. However, there weren't any $500 bills in the ransom so again if that theory is true it suggests these serial numbers weren't for $500 bills. As I've said in a previous post, I don't think based just on the serial number that it can be said these bills were $500 bills because serial numbers aren't universally unique.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 19, 2007 7:03:34 GMT -5
Hauptmann must have had some type of system for keeping track of the ransom money and the "cleaned" money gained from it. It can't be wise to disturb the hidden money any more than absolutely necessary. He has to have money available for daily expenses. I only wonder how concerned he was over having a bill identified from that very long list and to what degree that concern increased and decreased over the 2+ years.
|
|