|
Post by sue75 on Jan 8, 2009 23:42:09 GMT -5
George Steinweg -- the steamship agent who sold Isidor Fisch his ticket to Hamburg in 1933.
Steinweg's travel bureau was on the first floor at 226 East 86th Street. The building had five floors belonging to German businesses. In 1935, the Hauptmann Defense Fund was located on the top floor.
But were Steinweg and Hauptmann acquainted with each other at the time Steinweg booked Fisch's trip?
See About Town: The New Yorker and the World It Made by Ben Yagoda, published in 2000, pages 245-247. According to Yagoda's chapter notes (page 443), there seems to be an unpublished article on the Hauptmann Defense Fund at the New York Public Library.
William Shawn was a reporter for The New Yorker. One of his first assignments was to investigate the Hauptmann Defense Fund at 226 East 86 Street. See pages 245-246 for the account.
"...on the ground floor is a travel bureau (Deutsches Reiseburo, George Steinweg Mngr.), windows and walls covered by German travel posters..."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2009 9:21:24 GMT -5
It's my personal belief this is just a coincidence but a good find nevertheless....
Steinweg in my opinion is an important person when attempting to develop this case. Everyone who is convinced Hauptmann was flying Solo in the crime constantly attempt to disassociate Fisch with Hauptmann in every way they can.
Does it make sense that Hauptmann would pull of this enormous and damn near impossible crime, from start to finish - alone - then for no reason whatsoever carelessly connect himself up with the poor, penniless, and crooked Furrier only to be hoodwinked like some idiot who just fell off the boat?
How does one reconcile these issues and still feel comfortable with the Lone-Wolf conclusion?
Next, here is Steinweg. He says Fisch comes in on August 18, 1933 and plunks down $100. Then on November 13, 1933, in the afternoon, he shells out $490.00 for 1500 Reichmarks for himself, then peels off another $163.20 for 500 Reichmarks for Uhlig.
On the morning of November 14, 1933, Fisch again goes to the Agency and pulls out the final $306.00 which was due. According to Steinweg, Fisch had a "considerable" amount of cash in his "very large" wallet during these transactions which remained in that wallet. Upon seeing this money Steinweg suggested to Fisch that he buy more Reichmarks now but Fisch told him he had more money here, and if he needed more Reichmarks friends of his in the United States would purchase them and send them to him.
Why is this so important?
Because up until this point Hauptmann isn't involved AND Steinweg is absolutely positive most of the cash Fisch was throwing around was $10 gold certificates.
This is very strange for poor broken down Isadore who supposedly had nothing but cob-webs in his pockets, and a very bad cough.
Now this story alone is enough to raise suspicions, but it doesn't end there. Steinweg knowing gold was worth more over seas begins to "sell" these gold certs that Fisch had given to him to one Louis Gartner. And of course, Gartner (and all of the Employees in his office) would later be the subject of a J.J. Faulkner investigation. His handwriting originally agreeing generally according to handwriting expert Souder who requested more samples (10-15-34).
Hauptmann's name appears in all of this when, in the late afternoon of November 14, 1933, Hauptmann writes a check for $2000. This is reflected in the Ledger. This check is then cashed after hours through special efforts made by Steiner Rouse & Co. and this money comes straight from that source and not cash on hand out of anyone's "wallet."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2009 11:56:05 GMT -5
Just in case anyone is interested in creating a time-line...
Henry C. Leipold was said to have committed suicide on 8-20-33 by using a "small .22 Cal. Rifle." The wound was in the head above the right ear. The Death Certificate lists the Cause as: Bullet thru brain
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2009 10:08:52 GMT -5
I am going to do something I haven't done in a while - that is attack another one of the Absent Minded Professor's posts. The most recent one was emailed to me by a Member and it follows the line of thought Allen posted anonymously on Ronelle's board when he was making fun of people there who were more knowledgeable then he is. Basically he was calling them "lazy" when the man hasn't even personally researched the claims he makes, rather, arguing on the backs of others, or from a position of ignorance. It's insanity. Now when I say the "backs of others" what I mean is Jim Fisher, the New York Times (misrepresented as "Police Reports" in an effort to give them more creditability), and pure imagination with no source whatsoever. Allen has even borrowed the concept Fisher used by inventing dialog and thoughts from people involved in the Case then using that fiction as a matter of fact in order to support a position he holds dear. Then this Buffoon has the nerve to try and tell other people, who actually research the case, they don't know what they are talking about or attach some negative adjective to them in order misrepresent and/or label their research within category which people tend to find unacceptable. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=320It's sad. Unless otherwise noted, all of my quotes are from "Allen" from a post made on Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:31 pm from the "Truth" Bored. Notice the "we" in this sentence. He's either completely mental or he is employing the " Preachers We" tactic. Ask him who the other person(s) is/are who opened this book with him..... Here again Allen reaches into the past for evidence to attack information which has been developed years and years since. 1982? My post above was made in 2009. One of Zito's sources is Time Magazine: 2) Isidor Fisch, Hauptmann's partner in random business ventures, used ransom money to pay his passage back to Ger many, where Fisch died of tuberculosis in 1933. (Time Magazine, 12-31-34) Now Allen attaches this statement based upon Zito's research: Unfortunately, this applies to Allen and not the other way around. He has failed to properly research this angle so his only recourse is to reach back in time, 27 years, in order to try and upset a very likely scenario. Why? Because dare I say he's lazy? Dare I say because it doesn't fit his theory? Perfect example. Steinweg gave an eyewitness account of Fisch having a lot of money. He gives specific details, which he PROVES, that Fisch paid with $10 Gold Notes. Other people are searched out in connection with these details by Police, found, and back up Steinweg. Allen wouldn't know anything about this because he hasn't even bothered to look. For example, ask Allen for Frank Wilson's report regarding this investigation. When he evades the request please call him out - like he is attempting to do to everyone else. Don't feel sorry for him. He, in fact, is the least knowledgeable but for some unknown reason wants to be the Authority. But of course, that takes research.....Something Allen avoids (what did he say about a ten foot pole?) And how weak is his case when he uses Kennedy (out of context) in order to try and support his claim? Next, he wants everyone to ignore the circumstantial evidence here but embrace it where he sees fit. Once the Police discovered this cash came from Fisch's pockets, and not Hauptmann's, they wanted this information buried. Here is the "destitute" hobo not only pulling out wads cash - but $10 Gold Notes. And so they didn't pursue this to the end of coming up with serial numbers. They didn't want Fisch connected to any money at ALL - never mind gold notes which they themselves believed were ransom notes. Look, their own investigations up to that point prove their mindset. I am working on finding where those bills wound up but even then it will just be a position I can never prove beyond all doubt. Here lies the basic fundamental differences between Allen and I. When one actually researches this angle it is very plain to see it goes far beyond the point of "rumor" and it exposes the hypocrites for what they really are. Call them out, then watch them twist in the wind.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 2, 2009 14:57:50 GMT -5
Michael, if Fisch passed over these gold notes in 1933, why wasn't he apprehended or known about long before Hauptmann's arrest? More specifically, were investigators not on the trail of this now-suspected ransom bill passing shortly after it happened? If this was the case, they would have had no agenda to steer clear of anyone, in this case Fisch, who in my opinion though, was well tied into Hauptmann's money laundering campaign from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2009 15:52:44 GMT -5
Welcome back Joe - where you've been? Good question as usual.....
Let me answer it this way...
If Hauptmann is the Lone-Wolf Kidnapper then obviously it stands to reason that all the ransom money is originating from him. So if you're question here works for Fisch then under those circumstances it most certainly works for Hauptmann. Why then wasn't Hauptmann known about or arrested before 1934? Why not 1933? 1932? Was it because Hauptmann wasn't in possession of ransom money before then? See my point? You're position must be considered everywhere that it applies - and not just where we would like it to be. We can't disregard the application of a controlled type item arbitrarily if the truth is what we seek.
The answer for me comes from my personal (10) "ransom money passing" files I've assembled: That the money can be traced back to a certain point where that trail then goes cold.
If, on the other hand, you had a start from the other side of things - that is - starting with the guy who passed it - then you don't have a trail to follow because you already have your man. Of course unless you WANT to trace the money to its final resting place. They didn't need that with Hauptmann because he was caught spending AND in possession. Fisch was dead, couldn't suffer the penalty of prosecution, and therefore represented a distraction and/or potential issue which could muddy the waters in the eyes of a Jury.
Dead men tell no tales and the Prosecutors (and NJSP) wanted it left that way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2009 9:24:49 GMT -5
Michael, just taking a break from the case..
In re-reading Steinweg account, I realize now his business associate, Louis Gartner who deposited some of the gold notes Steinweg claims he originally received from Fisch, was not investigated until after Hauptmann's arrest. The account now makes more sense to me as I had originally believed investigators were chasing down Gartner shortly after he passed the gold notes at the Federal Reserve and came up blank as far as determining the origin of the bills. There certainly appears to have been a reluctance on the part of investigators to connect anyone other than Hauptmann by the time this information came to light in mid-October 1934.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2009 8:23:39 GMT -5
What's funny about a Case like this is that it tends to have a polarizing affect on those of us researching it. So much goes by the way side, disregarded, or falls through the cracks because it doesn't help or support the particular personal (or group) position or theory. Case in point is Steinweg's account. He's saying Fisch not only had wads of cash but that he had more money "here" and that "friends" would purchase more Reichmarks and then send them to him if necessary. IF he is talking about Hauptmann this is rather important is it not? So we have a contradiction which effects BOTH specific schools of thought which tend to exist: - Hauptmann knew about the box of money (or it was a story) AND Fisch was broke.
- Fisch had money AND Hauptmann had no idea what was in the box he left behind.
So by saying what he said above, Steinweg could do some serious damage to both of these positions. So here's something that hurts both - and because of that falls ever so quietly to the cutting room floor. I say we can't ignore material which conflicts in this way. The truth, I believe, can be found when this type of information is embraced and given the due consideration it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 6, 2013 1:24:55 GMT -5
I've always found the Steinweg business fascinating, as it nails Fisch as being in possession of a large quantity of gold certificates at a time when he was supposedly living like a hobo.
Another possibility regarding Fisch, Hauptmann and the ransom bills is that one of them acquired them early, not long after the crime, maybe after the child's body was discovered,--it's not important--they got the cash but they couldn't spend it, not in large amounts. Fisch maybe held onto the bulk of it for a while, knowing how hot it was.
Maybe Fisch and Hauptmann spent small amounts of the money, the small denomination notes, so as to avoid detection, as they probably guessed (and probably rightly) that they could spend a little of the money but not a lot and likely not get caught soon after the crime. As to whether these two had any actual involvement in the kidnapping or extortion is another matter. I'm trying to determine if they indeed were in possession of a large quantity of ransom notes they were also in a quandary as to what to do with them as yet another potential scenario in the LKC.
If this was the case, it explains the slowness of the detection of the gold certificates in the two years after the crime: these guys who were in possession of put them between a rock and a hard place, heaven and hell. What's worse, if these two had nothing to do with the kidnapping or extortion, they'd have had to have paid a fair sum of money to get a large sum of money. The fair sum likely came from Hauptmann. It usually did.
This is perhaps where Hauptmann's Fisch Story has some grains of truth: Fisch borrowed from Hauptmann to acquire the ransom money which, as they soon learned, was too hot to handle. What to do? Well, wait...but in the depths of the Depression!
|
|