|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2007 10:46:31 GMT -5
I think the link to your account research should be available here: homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/all-accounts.htmThe Hager thing still disturbs me. If he is the recipient of the cleaned J.J. Faulkner stash then why doesn't he have money available to loan Hager when he is first approached? The accounts tell a different tale. Was this money spoken for and/or tied up in some sort of different agreement? The cash Hauptmann later gives him doesn't appear to be coming from the bank accounts, which by most accounts is where Hauptmann is supposed to be placing the "clean" money. What was Hauptmann waiting for in order to get these clean hundreds that was neither ransom nor money from the bank?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2007 19:20:25 GMT -5
A little update concerning Hauptmann's explanations of the numbers on the back of the door..... This information is coming from Wilentz's "cheat sheets" concerning Hauptmann's statements. I don't have access to my files at the moment so I'll just post whats in that document I do have. When I get a chance I will dive into those statements. Doesn't remember when he marked numbers of bills. Marked numbers of bills first. Got them in early '32. Before wife went away.(p1, 9-25, 12:21PM)
Got them from Isadore. Around March.(p2)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2007 7:35:57 GMT -5
Great discussion going on here and I'll just jump back into it with a quick observation for now and a question regarding whether the serial numbers indicate denomination or not. We know that Hauptmann specified the ransom money to be paid as 50,000$. On the back of the door, he has written $500, with the dollar sign appearing before the amount. Is this a formal recognition, or perhaps a means in his own mind for differentiating amount and denomination respectively?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2007 8:08:00 GMT -5
Or was he simply writing (copying) from the bill in front of him?
All and all, I would vote for these being $500 notes. Then the question is still why record the serial numbers and why in that location? It must provide some utility to him. I can't believe there could be anything wrong with bills of such incredible high denomination. I would also think that possessing such high denomination notes, especially during that time, would be a guaranteed way to get noticed. Could this be related to an overseas exchange or transfer ?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2007 12:07:29 GMT -5
I'd also also cast my vote for them being $500 bills for reasons i) the multiple '0000' prefix seems to be commonplace on high denomination bills ii) that there are two serial numbers written along with the $500, so we know they are not $250 bills, and iii) that he puts the $ before the amount for the $500.
And I'd be inclined to believe Hauptmann was recording these numbers in order to ensure he recouped the same bills or as some kind of identifier for an informal loan. Hauptmann seems a bit of a strange bird when it came to record keeping of the things in his life, and where he chose to write them. And as Rab mentions, I was also struck by his rewriting of previous memo books to include even rough notation, scribbling and the seemingly mundane, although in a pre-computer age and rough draft letter writing, I suppose this might have been more commonplace.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2007 15:39:05 GMT -5
But why would he want the same bills back? I keep missing this point as well as recording them as some type of receipt. It can only be a receipt if the bills are the items sold, not the amount. I know Hauptmann is a peculiar type, but his re-writing of ledgers is a bit different than recording serial numbers on a door. I would think that just having such large denomination currency would attract some attention.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2007 17:21:57 GMT -5
Kevin, I really don't know why he would want the same bills back and I guess I'm as much in the dark here as you are. Perhaps it's just because he's Hauptmann. I think more often than not, we're at a sizeable disadvantage when it comes to trying to understand the man, being constantly in a position just outside a bubble that is forever changing its shape. That's why I was so intrigued by some of the things that Dave (recently on the Hoax Site) has revealed towards a more complete understanding of Hauptmann that I hope will soon be put forth. If its any consolation, here are the dominant signs from Hauptmann's birthchart. I'm not a firm believer in this stuff and like to have a bit of fun with it, and I've had some very interesting personal experiences, but that's another story. His is one of the most unusual charts out there when it comes to well known personalities as it is so heavily stacked in mutable (changeable) signs, most notably Sagittarius, also Gemini and Virgo. This one is bound to raise any astrologist's eyebrows. It at least brings to mind for me, one of the author's observations about how Hauptmann "like a bird flitted down to the next fencepost" whenever police questioning threatened to corner him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2007 18:37:10 GMT -5
Quick comment:
I'm not sure we could make this jump since Hauptmann, as evidenced by his own standards, placed the dollar $ in both places from time to time
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2007 20:08:13 GMT -5
I know a little about Mr Hauptmann as well, building his ladder a few times has allowed me to walk a bit in his shoes, so to say. Observing some of his other endeavors, handling his carpentry tools, these things have revealed some of his characteristics to me. This is a guy who is comfortable flying by the seat of his pants. He thinks on his feet and doesn't sweat the details. He's the ultimate clutch hitter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2007 10:06:46 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of Astrology, although I will say back in the '30's I found it to be a huge interest with the general public. I personally see no worth other then to have a bit of fun..... [ Hauptmann]: No. About them two numbers I am sure it was 500 or $1,000 bills. ( p3 - 11:55) ...... [ Hauptmann]: I got them in 32 - early 32. I know it was the first two thousand dollars I got, I can't give any more, it was early 32. ( p1 - 12:55) ....... [ A]: I only can remember this is the first money I got from Isidore. It was two big bills. ( p2) ....... A perusal of the list of ransom bills in possession of the undersigned disclosed that the last four digits of this notation were the same as on one of the five and ten dollar ransom notes. (Det. Bornmann, NJSP, 9-25-34)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2007 12:58:14 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan either but I don't discount a number of the tenets within its scope to partially explain how our universe operates. Over the past five hundred years in particular, western culture has fully embraced scientific scrutiny to explain everything we can, quite often at the expense of ancient arts and philosphies. I think a lot of it has to do with how we view the relative position of our planet within all of Space. My own feeling is that we're a very small part of a much larger being and there are significant parts of that being which have a direct and repetitive influence on our lives, (the moon on our tides for one) right down to the smallest organism we share the planet with. Anyway, back to the case...
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on May 16, 2016 2:09:52 GMT -5
This is a long-dormant thread, I know, but I'm bumping it up because I just recently got Eve Bates' book (original topic of this thread, though it later meandered a bit!) and read the chapter in it regarding the Lindbergh case. I'm curious to know -- who all here read it?
First thing that jumped out at me was that the timing seemed off, regarding "Dick" and "Izzy". I came here to see if there was a thread about the Bates book (and OF COURSE there is, how did I ever doubt that there would be) and read that you folks were onto that long ago. Despite the details that don't "fit" what we "know", I have to think there is probably some truth to Bates' story. I don't think she made it up out of thin air...but that memories may have become clouded and/or "enhanced" over time.
Michael, I think that the last you posted directly about the Bates book (well, that one chapter, anyhow) in this thread is that you planned to read it. Did you ever...and if so, did it spark any discoveries or revelations?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2016 5:48:45 GMT -5
Someone loaned it to me and I did read it. However, that was about 8 years ago now (?!!) and I've forgotten most of it. I do remember taking some notes on it but I'd have to find them. I will look because now I am curious as to where they might be. I know where they should be so hopefully I'll get lucky here....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2016 15:56:02 GMT -5
First thing that jumped out at me was that the timing seemed off, regarding "Dick" and "Izzy". I came here to see if there was a thread about the Bates book (and OF COURSE there is, how did I ever doubt that there would be) and read that you folks were onto that long ago. Despite the details that don't "fit" what we "know", I have to think there is probably some truth to Bates' story. I don't think she made it up out of thin air...but that memories may have become clouded and/or "enhanced" over time. Michael, I think that the last you posted directly about the Bates book (well, that one chapter, anyhow) in this thread is that you planned to read it. Did you ever...and if so, did it spark any discoveries or revelations? I was able to find my notes about this. Hauptmann didn't know anything about furs, and he left that up to Fisch believing whatever he told him. It's my opinion that her story is true but I think she's doing what most people did back then. As you will see in my book, even real witnesses did this during the case. They would actually see something legit but then once certain people connected to the case emerged they tried to connect their account directly to those people. Some did this honestly while others were doing it for personal gain. For those who want something to be true they either embrace or dismiss the accounts for any reason they can grab onto. As an example, if someone said the person they saw looked like Violet Sharp it could immediately be disregarded because it could not have been Sharp -- yet, others might say all it means is that it was not Sharp but could still be related. Anyway, I think you're right in taking a closer look at this, and if you take the same approach to every account sooner or later it will bear fruit. That's not to say I can't be disagreed with here either but for me I am convinced it's not related.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 20:00:12 GMT -5
When I first started following this board, I was intrigued by this Izzy and Dick story. I felt (still do) that Hauptmann and Fisch knew each other before the kidnapping. So this part of Eva Bates book was really appealing. With everything I have learned so far about the characters in this case, you realize that "Dick" is not Hauptmann. Hauptmann knew nothing about furs not in 1929 or even in 1932. Hauptmann depended on Fisch to handle that part of their business relationship.
Izzy in this story sort of suggests Fisch by physical size and coloring. Could Fisch have actually come to Riverside NJ with someone else who wasn't Hauptmann to buy furs in 1929? I pulled out my Henry Uhlig trial testimony with this possibility in mind. Uhlig testified that Fisch had a friend named Kern. Like "Dick" Kern was a German. Kern was a fur trapper and also like "Dick", Kern lived in Brooklyn. Could it have been Izzy and Kern who went to Riverside NJ in 1929. Izzy and Kern were friends then and they were both in the fur business. Just speculating as I really don't know anything about Kern except what Uhlig testified to.
I also think Fisch used Kern's identity when he was impressing Hauptmann with his great fur knowledge and skill and Hauptmann then used this knowledge at Steiner Rouse. In Lloyd Gardner book Chapter 11, page 254 (2012 paperback edition) William Mulligan, an employee of Steiner Rouse testified at the Flemington Trial that when Hauptmann came in to open a new account, Hauptmann told Mulligan that, "he was a fur trapper and dealer, that he was accustomed to traveling around through the West, trap and buy skins in Oregon and Washington and then on his way back, he would stop off at St. Louis and dispose of them."
Michael, was this man Kern ever found and investigated? Since Reilly is bringing him up, I am assuming that Wilentz knows about this man also.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2016 18:17:08 GMT -5
Michael, was this man Kern ever found and investigated? Since Reilly is bringing him up, I am assuming that Wilentz knows about this man also. His name was Osias Kern. I don't remember very much being in the reports about him other then he was a German furrier who was Fisch's friend. His name came up from both Max Falek and Charles Schlosser so it's possible there's more about him in the reports concerning them. I have a file on Schlosser but Falek's material is scattered among my Fisch, Hauptmann, and Parker files. I could search if you're interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:58:09 GMT -5
His name was Osias Kern. I don't remember very much being in the reports about him other then he was a German furrier who was Fisch's friend. His name came up from both Max Falek and Charles Schlosser so it's possible there's more about him in the reports concerning them. I have a file on Schlosser but Falek's material is scattered among my Fisch, Hauptmann, and Parker files. I could search if you're interested. I just thought Kern might be the man in Eva Bates story. I don't think Kern has any connect to the kidnapping. I appreciate your offer to search for additional info but its not necessary. Thanks anyway. I know who Max Falek is. He had lent money to Fisch for one of Fisch's "business investments". I understand from Kennedy's book that Falek had a receipt showing Fisch owed him $800 dollars. Based on that, Falek was able to get a court order to open Fisch's safety deposit box. Falek, Hauptmann and Uhlig were present for this. Imagine their disappointment when they saw the deposit box was empty! If Fisch was so poor, I wonder why he even HAD a safety deposit box to begin with. I am not sure who Charles Schlosser is. Could he be the man I know as Charles Schleser, the guy who was spying on the defense team (by pretending to help them) for Wilentz?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2016 13:40:49 GMT -5
I know who Max Falek is. He had lent money to Fisch for one of Fisch's "business investments". I understand from Kennedy's book that Falek had a receipt showing Fisch owed him $800 dollars. Based on that, Falek was able to get a court order to open Fisch's safety deposit box. Falek, Hauptmann and Uhlig were present for this. Imagine their disappointment when they saw the deposit box was empty! If Fisch was so poor, I wonder why he even HAD a safety deposit box to begin with. Falek or Faelick, depending upon the document, was a childhood friend of Fisch having attended school with him in Germany. Fisch asked for investment money telling him if he ever needed any back he could have it. Over time, Fisch would stop by and collect whatever "extra" money Falek had - so it wasn't like he gave him $800 dollars at once but rather it was the grand total over that period of time. One time Fisch stopped by to collect but Falek's mother had died so he told Fisch he needed money for a tombstone. The very next day Fisch returned with a $100 dollar bill. Before Fisch left for Germany, Falek asked him for a receipt only because he was a "sick" man and that was the only reason he had one. Kennedy was right about the safe deposit box. Once it was opened it contained "nothing but dust." Fisch was very interesting, but I think what's even more interesting is how certain people fashion him into being whatever they need him to be. He's so poor he's sleeping on park benches, yet he's the guy the workers at the Knickerbocker Pie Company loved to see because that meant they were going to get paid. He's an honest "angel" yet he's borrowing money from everyone he can think of under false pretenses. I am not sure who Charles Schlosser is. Could he be the man I know as Charles Schleser, the guy who was spying on the defense team (by pretending to help them) for Wilentz? Same guy. Like above, it depends on the document as to how his name is spelled. Before I read your post I did a little searching in Schlosser's file and found that he claimed Fisch had at one time lived in a little wooden shack on Coney Island that was located behind Kern's summer cottage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 8:02:56 GMT -5
Falek or Faelick, depending upon the document, was a childhood friend of Fisch having attended school with him in Germany. Fisch asked for investment money telling him if he ever needed any back he could have it. Over time, Fisch would stop by and collect whatever "extra" money Falek had - so it wasn't like he gave him $800 dollars at once but rather it was the grand total over that period of time. One time Fisch stopped by to collect but Falek's mother had died so he told Fisch he needed money for a tombstone. The very next day Fisch returned with a $100 dollar bill. Before Fisch left for Germany, Falek asked him for a receipt only because he was a "sick" man and that was the only reason he had one. I am curious by your use of the word "collect" instead of "borrow" from Falek. Don't you collect money from people who owe money? I have always wondered about something I read in Lloyd's book about Fisch but never asked about. In Chapter 11, page 248 (2012 paperback ed.) Lloyd says that Augusta Hile thought so highly of Fisch that she would entrust nearly $4,000 dollars with Fisch to invest for her and that she also appointed Fisch as her agent to collect debts. Collect debts for her? Was she loaning money? Was she a source for illegal alcohol or something? Did Falek owe Hile money and Fisch was collecting it? Personally, I have always thought the Knickerbocker Pie Company was a front for delivering bootlegged liquor in trucks that appear to be delivering pies to restaurants, etc. Hile's son Karl Henkel drove a truck for that pie company for a while. I have noticed there are people in this case that seem to have "dual personalities" with a good side and a bad side, depending on how a person was involved with one of these people. Among them you see this with Fisch. You also see it with Condon. You see it with Hauptmann. It can really divide people who study this case based on which side of these dual personalities you choose to accept as being the "real" person. A lot of money passed through Fisch's hands yet he seemed to have nothing to show for it but an empty safety deposit box and a line of people he owed money to. Fisch was also sick with a progressive terminal condition. I think it very possible he was self-medicating which would have cost him some serious bucks. Did Fisch gamble?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2016 16:32:19 GMT -5
I am curious by your use of the word "collect" instead of "borrow" from Falek. Don't you collect money from people who owe money? I often use words in my posts that are in the source material. For example, Falek's lawyer, Emanuel Rosenblat said that: "...in 1931 Fisch came around and Faelick gave him $60 and says that from 1931 right up to 1933 Fisch continually came around collecting $10. or $15. a week." Falek said: "He wanted to invest some money in pie baking company and asked me if I wanted to invest too. So I gave him $800 little by little, whenever he came to me and I had something and give it to him." A lot of money passed through Fisch's hands yet he seemed to have nothing to show for it but an empty safety deposit box and a line of people he owed money to. Fisch was also sick with a progressive terminal condition. I think it very possible he was self-medicating which would have cost him some serious bucks. Did Fisch gamble? Well they did find his bank account with just over $50 at North River Savings. Falek also claimed that Fisch told him he owned Real Estate. I haven't seen any evidence that he gambled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 8:43:51 GMT -5
I often use words in my posts that are in the source material. For example, Falek's lawyer, Emanuel Rosenblat said that: "...in 1931 Fisch came around and Faelick gave him $60 and says that from 1931 right up to 1933 Fisch continually came around collecting $10. or $15. a week." Falek said: "He wanted to invest some money in pie baking company and asked me if I wanted to invest too. So I gave him $800 little by little, whenever he came to me and I had something and give it to him." Thanks for clarifying this! So, Fisch is collecting investment money from people. $10 to $15 dollars a week is a nice sum of money to have available to invest during the early years of the depression. What did Falek do for a living? Lou Wedemar wrote about Fisch in his articles. He mentions that Fisch was a member of at least two different Jewish societies, The Chrzanower Society of Galician Jews and The Vienna Jewish Benevolent Society which was an organization of Austrian Jews. The Chrzanower Society was outspoken about Fisch being proverty stricken. Would you know if the Vienna Society saw Fisch as being very poor also? I would assume these groups were offering him some financial support.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 21, 2016 13:50:00 GMT -5
Could you possibly link me to one or more of these Lou Wedemar articles? I tried to download something off the newspapers.com web site, but was unable to do so. Although I never heard of Wedemar before, he seems to have been a prominent newspaper writer in the 1930s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 14:47:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2016 17:37:51 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this! So, Fisch is collecting investment money from people. $10 to $15 dollars a week is a nice sum of money to have available to invest during the early years of the depression. What did Falek do for a living? He was a clerk in a delicatessen. Lou Wedemar wrote about Fisch in his articles. He mentions that Fisch was a member of at least two different Jewish societies, The Chrzanower Society of Galician Jews and The Vienna Jewish Benevolent Society which was an organization of Austrian Jews. The Chrzanower Society was outspoken about Fisch being proverty stricken. Would you know if the Vienna Society saw Fisch as being very poor also? I would assume these groups were offering him some financial support. Those interviewed from the Chrzanower Society believed him to be broke. Blitzer told the FBI that he couldn't afford to go to the Doctor. Of course we know that wasn't true because he was going to one, but it's obvious that's how he portrayed himself to them. Blitzer even said that they offered to give him free dues and a new suit but that Fisch declined the charity because he was too proud. The Viennese Jewish Social Club disbanded sometime in 1931. A few were even current members of the Chrzanower Society. Former members were interviewed with mixed results. Some believed Fisch was broke, while others knew him to be "tight" with his money but never knew him to be without funds. I think it's worthy to mention that before Fisch left for Germany he attempted to settle an $800 debt he had with the Mohrdiecks. They told him to keep the money and reinvest it for them. Also, he owed Alois Motzer $1000 and before he left he settled up that debt too.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on May 22, 2016 8:00:53 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying this! So, Fisch is collecting investment money from people. $10 to $15 dollars a week is a nice sum of money to have available to invest during the early years of the depression. What did Falek do for a living? He was a clerk in a delicatessen. wasn't there animal fat/grease on some of the ransom money? i seem to recall that was part of Zorn's John Knowles theory.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 22, 2016 9:07:20 GMT -5
The Zorn suspect was John KNOLL, not Knowles, just for the record. Most people here, including myself, don't buy Zorn's theory.
The fact that there was animal fat and/or grease on some of the ransom bills doesn't lead with any significant degree of probability to a determination that CJ was a deli worker. I'd think that many, if not most, bills in circulation, might have grease on them by the time they are analyzed because they pass through so many hands during their "life span."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2016 9:19:44 GMT -5
wasn't there animal fat/grease on some of the ransom money? i seem to recall that was part of Zorn's John Knowles theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 13:55:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 14:01:46 GMT -5
I think it's worthy to mention that before Fisch left for Germany he attempted to settle an $800 debt he had with the Mohrdiecks. They told him to keep the money and reinvest it for them. Also, he owed Alois Motzer $1000 and before he left he settled up that debt too. Why do you think that Fisch offered to pay back some people but not others like Falek, and Mrs. Hile, etc.? Did it have anything to do with Fisch believing he would be returning to America sometime in 1934?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2016 14:42:13 GMT -5
Why do you think that Fisch offered to pay back some people but not others like Falek, and Mrs. Hile, etc.? Did it have anything to do with Fisch believing he would be returning to America sometime in 1934? Great question. It appears that Fisch engaged in ponzy scheme-type scams over the years so he may have had a system worked out whereby certain people were to be repaid before others. The whole situation needs to be looked at more closely - what were the factors? Where did the money come from? It seems to me that Fisch had a large sum available to him so he decided to repay those at the top of his list.
|
|