|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2009 13:59:23 GMT -5
I can understand this position if its clear. If it isn't, then for me, I can't assume there was no enrichment of any kind. Enrichment could mean repaying a "debt" owed by performing a service, obtaining something other then money, honoring a deal to protect one's self from harm or becoming a victim of blackmail, serving some psychological need, etc. etc.
When it comes to Hauptmann, there's no other investigation that comes close to the way his finances were scrutinized. Geissler is the only one who even comes close, and he too isn't even comparable. You can't say anyone is enriched or isn't if no one has a bank account to begin with. What if living in a luxury was a qualifier? Hauptmann would fail that test. And why? He has all of this money yet still lives in a situation where he's cramped, hates his landlord, and is being hauled into Court of stupid little disputes.
If its vacations then Hauptmann qualifies. Especially before March 1, 1932.
One thing that comes to mind concerning Fisch's $$ 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.
There's the Pie Company purchase. There's the fur coat. There's the dancing lessons. There's the magazine subscription. There the stock purchases. Now there's hustling and fraud going on as well but there are real purchases with real amounts of money going on.
There's also people to say how dirt poor he was but just as many who said he had money. That was part of his game.
....that while Fisch appeared dumb looking he was a shrewd business man and knew his skins being able to identify same by the feel with his eyes closed......
.....Gewurz also stated that he never knew Fisch to be broke, did not ever hear that Fisch ever slept on park benches, etc. (Det. Sgt. Haussling, NJSP, 11-9-34)
If you want to go over everything piece by piece and try to attribute the sources for the money I am definitely game. What there is on Fisch, by way of the reports, I think I have.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2009 15:27:31 GMT -5
But it seems very clear, you have just defined enrichment. So who other than Hauptmann benefited to a degree proportional to the crime? Are the expenditures you noted Fisch making representative of a major participation in this? Then there is the case for the "insider", a position of extreme risk and exposure. We know all of the insiders, who was enriched ( choose any form of enrichment)?
More problematic regarding the "insider" is that there must be a link to Hauptmann and unless you believe that many were involved ( more enrichment) then that link must be a direct one.
I'm with you 100%. The fact is, no matter how hard it may for some to believe, Hauptmann could have performed all of the actions evidenced in this crime by himself. I think that's a fact that should always be remembered when looking at alternatives. It doesn't mean he didn't have help, simply that he didn't absolutely require it. Expanding the list of those responsible for this crime might seem reasonable to some, but it should be with the full awareness of all that is entailed in having multiple players. That means communication, planning, execution, and enrichment. All of those things leave a trace.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 23, 2009 18:03:29 GMT -5
Michael, I think you are arguing a particularly thin line here. Basically that because nobody else was investigated to the extent that Hauptmann was that therefore we can't rule out [their] enrichment. That it is a lack of evidence rather than a lack of enrichment. From my point of view there was a lot of investigation of certain people (e.g. Fisch) though I will grant you less of others who one might want to know more about. But we can only work with the evidence in front of us. Using the lack of investigation argument could lead to all sorts of unsubstantiated theories.
The reality is that the only person who was central to this who benefited was Hauptmann. You say he didn't live in luxury but it's all relative. He wasn't working, his wife wasn't working. Yet he invested, they vacationed, they had a child, they bought mortgages. How many of their contemporaries were living like that? Seems to me to be rather a high standard for the times.
The distraction of pre-March 1932 spending is just that: a distraction. Hauptmann's finances pre-kidnapping are clear and explainable. There is nothing to my mind that stands out as a mystery. The 1931 vacation can't be compared to the 1933 one: they camped, they took along a companion to share costs, they counted every penny along the way, he took his tools. The funding comes from their bank account. Not the case in 1933: they stay in motels, the travel without anyone else, there are no bank account withdrawals for motel or other costs and he returns from vacation and actually deposits money to his account. The comparison is apples and oranges.
In terms of Fisch, I'd certainly like to dig in more. On the Steinweg example, I'd have to check the timing again, but my recollection is that the money actually came from Hauptmann. And for the pie factory the money was borrowed. So to my mind there are explanations for what money Fisch did have. He was a con man and that was the source of whatever extra money he had though my sense is that most of the money coming to him was of the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" variety. Almost a Ponzi scheme. And there is absolutely no evidence that he ever gave Hauptmann money to invest in stocks. As I've said in the past, the explanation seems to be that Hauptmann was investing for Fisch but with his [Hauptmann's] money believing that the [worthless] furs provided security. Hauptmann basically admits this in his trial testimony. They were both trying to cheat each other (Hauptmann also admits inflating the value of the stocks) it's just that Fisch was better at it.
To me the last great unexplained element of the crime is whether Hauptmann had an accomplice. I think we know enough to know that he was central to it, that he was involved from beginning to end, that he gained the major benefit. But whether he had help is really the great mystery to me.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 24, 2009 7:11:42 GMT -5
Michael, you mention Fisch's enrichment. What have I missed in terms of this because I don't recall any evidence of him being enriched? I recall evidence of him scamming people and to my mind he was scamming Hauptmann on the whole quid pro quo of their supposed fur and stocks business, but I don't recall any evidence of him being in possession of or benefiting from unexplained sources of income. I do side with Kevin in this discussion. It comes down to cui bono (who benefits). Of all the players, Hauptmann is the one who benefits and he benefits to a major degree. Doesn't mean that he didn't have help - as I've suggested myself over time - but it doesn't mean he did either. I don't see anything about the crime that required inside help but I can see the benefit to having an accomplice, perhaps even after the fact. Rab There are all manner of possible enrichements for the Condon Mafia Gang=Extortion in the Bronx....some large, some small--some we can find and some we cant. Fisch was reported to be carrying Gold Certz, most notably by Steilweg, who tracked them down to his friends. Fisch was also reported to be selling Gold Certz with Fritz at a pool hall for 40 cents on the dollar. Fisch may have had a pretty big payroll? [He might have had to pay JJ Faulkner $3000] Over at the Knickerbocker Pie Company, Fisch was known as "moneybags"--when he showed up everyone got paid. In April 1932, Fisch was staying in a Connecticut boarding house with another of his mystery women. This is where he was visited by Dr. Goodman who looked remarkably like John Condon?{ Maybe thats when the sleeping suite was mailed from Stamford?} Also, Fisch was reported to own property on Long Island--this may have been located/visited by Steve Romeo> Red Johnsons needs and desires might be much smaller--starting with the 1926 Green Chrysler coupe he bought just 2 weeks before Charlie Jr. went missing? Like Fisch, Red wanted everyone to believe he didnt even have two pennies to rub together--and he had to wait until the phone rates went down to make any calls? More than likely, Red could be bought for a tank of gas and a few beers? Try and find that!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2009 7:43:00 GMT -5
We are really venturing off the topic of the thread so before I forget I wanted to point out there's a great bit of information on Red Johnson in Mark Falzini's book - Their Fifteen Minutes. Exactly. This was a cash & carry world. This was a wink & nod type of environment - so much so that just about EVERYONE was willing to engage in it to some degree or another. Most people didn't have a bank account. What of those that did? Can we say they put all of their money in them? No way. Next, again, I have to say no one had their finances looked at like Hauptmann. So by comparing Hauptmann to anyone else in order to specifically say they aren't involved in any way whatsoever isn't realistic. The other point I wanted to make is this: What if they hadn't tore down his garage? Would that have meant the money found there did not exist? This is where we are at now concerning various suspects. In some respects we're the Police standing in front of their garages.... Do we walk away or do we at least attempt to tear it down? There's the other type of enrichments to consider as well. And as always - there's the wild-card which serves no "rational" purpose. Love, or the idea of being in love. You can't validate and/or qualify rational behavior or thoughts along these lines. The mere thought of losing someone you are in love with might create an environment to do just about anything - no matter what it is. And here we are looking for financial enrichment as the ONLY indicator of involvement. Then we have the one guy who we can show enrichment and he's still fighting with his landlord in that small cramped apartment? What was he waiting for? This is my point. We don't know and for good reason. Because of this do we now abandon any or all leads? We have evidence of other involvement. That had to be someone. So what do we do? Fisch's expenditures, in my opinion, point to him having money. This disproves the theory he had none, and that he must be eliminated based upon this position. I have yet to see someone start, from beginning to end, and explain the course of events where only Hauptmann is involved. It's just not possible. I know that area, that house, and that schedule blindfolded and I know I still couldn't have done that alone. I think you apply what we know and equal that as over-ruling what we don't - despite the fact the is something very important in what we don't. Did Hauptmann benefit? Yes. Did Fisch? He would have had to. Despite the lies Wilentz portrayed at trial, Hauptmann did have a partnership with Fisch. Fisch was benefiting from that partnership. Even if Fisch had no idea Hauptmann had ransom money (anyone believe that?) then he still is enjoying the rewards of that crime. Hauptmann bought a mortgage, vacationed, quit his job, and bought stock before the crime too. Where did his contemporaries do this? This too seems like a high level of living. I'd love to see this. Even Agent Frank seems to struggle with it. He was supposedly tapped out, paying the margin call with what little he had left. But then quits his job, puts his property in storage, returns to stay in temporary quarters then rents an apartment which cost more then his original. He's not flat broke here - can't be. How much was the temporary quarters? How much for storage? And there's no paper trail concerning where this money that's needed here comes from. If there is please show me where. There's plenty Anna wanted to do, at a relatively low cost, that Hauptmann would not do because of the expense. I could look up these examples if you'd like. So while there's some differences - there's some similarities as well. I am game. I've always felt the need to consult you with my findings so now that you are here I'd like to do that when ever you get the chance. Check out Steinweg. Hauptmann's $2000 check came in the afternoon of 11-14 after banking hours. It was only cashed because of Steiner Rouse doing a favor. I didn't count that money in my example although one could argue it was Fisch's in the first place. Maybe it was. But in we do have to consider other sources as well don't we? If we can rule them out then let's do that but with the facts in front of us. As to the $1500.00 paid by Fisch to buy an interest in the pie business, Schlesser explained that the sum in question was paid, as he recalls, in three $500 bills which undoubtedly, in his opinion, were the proceeds of savings of about eight or nine hundred dollars from Fisch's more prosperous days in the fur business, as well as the proceeds of a sale of different pieces of fur which Fisch had retained after his withdrawal from the fur business. ( Agent O'Donnell, (F)BI, 9-23-34) [/blockquote] It's my theory there was some sort of enrichment prior to the kidnapping. As always, theres more then one explanation for this. There was alot of illegal activity to consider that went on before, during, and after the crime. I think there are different type of ways to look at things. I try to stay neutral, as best I can, and consider everything there is to consider. If I can put it to rest I will, but if I can't then I never say its not worthy of consideration. There are variables and circumstances that must be considered regardless of what is known absolutely. I was talking to Lloyd (Dr. Gardner) recently about Viet Nam (something I know very little about). As anyone who knows him will tell you the guy is brilliant. He was telling me that on paper we were winning the War and at one point, according to all of the facts & data, the end was a foregone conclusion. However, he said they never took considered the will of the Viet Nam Cong San to resist. He called it an intangible, and that by ignoring certain things that are immeasurable - it doesn't mean they aren't real. Shouldn't we take that lesson and apply it here?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2009 7:56:40 GMT -5
Ok, my point is simply that you can't have all these people involved without any evidence of some type of enrichment or pay that is relative to the magnitude of this crime. That pretty much eliminates the "gang" .
What act physical action do you feel could not be accomplished without assistance?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 24, 2009 20:48:33 GMT -5
The above hypothesis simply isnt true--and does not hold water: - Why, because we dont know what any accomplice on the inside was told? Or what threat was used for assistance or by whom? CAL might be guite persuasive--or a death threat from the outside? After all, its 1932, and the MOB runs the country with overt violence.
- Maybe noone was told it was an outright kidnap--some were so dingy they might have thought it was some sort of game? Like hide the button = Charlie jr? Then bring him right back/ safe sound and unharmed in one week.
- Take Red for example, maybe some ticket or police charge against him was dropped in exchange for mailing some post cards in West Hartford?
- Take Violet Sharpe for example, maybe she thought she was helping out the family, by covering up something weird. She only fell totally to pieces when Xharlie jr turned up on Mt. Rose Hill?
- Maybe Violet was told her sister could go back to England?She would do anything, even die if necessary, to protect her sister Edna? (or her reputation?)
- Servants, in general, act self effacing--like servants, and dont ever expect a huge wad of cash? They do what they are told, because they are scart to loose their job. They are the pawns.
- Certain theories involve various family members and Charlie being dead before March 1st? So there could be other lies told?
- As for the Condon gang in the Bronx--well most of them might want to see some real dough-re-mi. [Except for Mary Cerrita and Peter Birritella--all they got for their trouble was round trip tickets to Princeton Junction and $35 bucks]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2009 21:57:24 GMT -5
It's not a hypothesis, it's a fact. A fact which is reflected in your own points, all of which include some form of reward which in turn, would leave some trace. Do you really believe that a "gang" could be assembled for a crime of this magnitude out of underpaid dupes? Are you suggesting that these hapless participants would never utter a word? Do you think such a gang could exist without leaving any trace?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 25, 2009 6:40:15 GMT -5
Sure it was. But bank deposits are only one measure of enrichment. We measure Hauptmann's enrichment not just by what he deposited but by what he spent. Whether on basic living - rent, food, utilities - or on luxuries - vacations, mortgages, canoe, radio, binoculars, hunting trips. And we deem that to be enrichment because - and here's the nub of it - neither he nor his wife had any income. That's why it's enrichment - they were spending money for which there was no explainable source. And we don't need receipts to show this - we know that everyone has a basic need in terms of shelter, food and clothing and that it requires some form of income to address that need.
So we don't have to have the bank details of the other people or to tear down their garages to show enrichment. We simply have to ask: who was living without any income? And I can't think of a single other example apart from Hauptmann. Everyone else had a job of some sort and neither did they seem to have a lifestyle beyond their income.
This is also the basis on which we can assess Hauptmann's pre-March 1932 spending. His expenditure then is clearly sourced from his bank accounts and the deposits to his bank accounts are explainable by his and his wife's income, whether from carpentry, waitressing or his occasional forays into money lending. So this is not enrichment in my view because there is a source for the money. I haven't got all my papers to hand but if there are transactions which you think are suspicious then let's examine them. But as a whole I don't find anything unexplainable or any evidence of enrichment. We must compare like with like: bottom line difference - there was legitimate income prior to March 1932 and there was little to no income thereafter.
Absolutely, and I would accept this point. The motivation of an accomplice is not always necessarily about money. It could be threat or love or loyalty or to settle a financial debt (one of my favourite other possibilities given Hauptmann's money lending past) or, as you say, something irrational. But the primary motivation in a kidnapping is money and I think it only fair that we ask for evidence of who else was enriched financially. Nobody that I can think of and nor can I think of any other obvious candidates in the other categories but I'm happy to be corrected.
I remain very open minded on the accomplice question but if there was one then to me it was a junior partner, there was no gang of people, and it could very well have been someone recruited after the kidnapping itself. We should ask ourselves why the ransom was raised. It wasn't to look after the child - the stated reason - because the child was almost certainly already dead. It could have been - as I've speculated in the past - because as the child was now dead the risk was higher and therefore so should the "reward". Equally it could have been to pay for an accomplice after the fact. I'd maintained in the past that there is nothing in the initial ransom notes in terms of a plan for handover of the ransom so it suggests either something which was being formulated on the fly or else extremely flexible to the changing circumstances.
I'm with Kevin here. I think it was possible. Perhaps in a separate thread we should start to put together all the steps. I'm failing to see what was impossible for one man. I think an accomplice would certainly have helped. And Hauptmann wasn't a man who did a lot alone. But I don't think it impossible.
On Steinweg, I don't think that there is any evidence that the cash used was made up of gold certificates. He confuses his own testimony in this regard. In terms of the timing, I think you're saying that Fisch had the money before Hauptmann cashed the cheque. I don't know if that's the case or not, I'd have to look into it. But that doesn't preclude Fisch borrowing the money from someone else for a few hours and we know he seemed to have a veritable line-up of marks willing to lend him money. I do agree that the money from Hauptmann likely represents a repayment (of money given to him by Fisch in July 1933 if memory serves).
Where do you suggest we start with Fisch? As I say, I don't find his finances to be particularly mysterious. What arouses your suspicion? I think it essential that we look at specifics rather than casting vague suspicion on the whole.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2009 8:47:30 GMT -5
Not to continue on with a circular argument, but if you don't pursue this line there will never be any evidence of it. We have exactly that against Hauptmann - because it was pursued.
Without getting caught? Any and all of them. Did he case the place or not? If so, he knew the routine, but if not, then there's no way he could have known all he knew. It's one or the other and the blind luck theory fails in so many ways I cannot count.
I wouldn't say it isn't true Rick. I would say we don't know yet. And we must continue to turn over rocks and raise issues to work them out to their logical conclusions before claiming what's right or wrong. This position challenges those who disagree to find something to change it.
I am with you here. My difference with your assessment is this: While we do know where some of it came from, this happened because the investigations occurred. Without them we wouldn't. Even so, there are flaws in them exposed only when looking at additional information contained in later reports, investigations, and memos that seem to get ignored due to the facts contain in the earlier ones or the need to in order to convict Hauptmann under certain older assertions. A pretext. Next, it assumes all unexplained enrichment comes solely from ransom money. With just a little bit of digging we can see Hauptmann had other methods of making money outside of ransom.
Also, I am a fan of verfication concerning what a certain position holds. If, for instance, it is universally accepted that Fisch was flat broke, sleeping on park benches, and passing out from lack of food as proof he wasn't involved then I wouldn't expect him to have a wad of cash in his wallet before having Hauptmann get his $2000 check cashed.
Know what I mean?
There's a ton of these monumental "myths" which the solution of this case is based upon. There's also alot of information which purports to show Hauptmann as being 100% innocent, and that looks good too. But we've worked through some of this stuff in order to properly explain it. I am see these efforts working on both sides of the fence.
Does this apply to Fisch and Paul Wendel too? I think sending me on this mission to find others will yield results. Also, how does one reconcile this with the fact Anna was working for a period even after the ransom delivery? Next, again - apply this with Hauptmann quitting his job to tour the country before he has any ransom.
The other issue is this: Are we to assume everyone who was ever involved in crime to not work and spend money? Or is it safe to assume they might actually use their profession to assist in laundering the money?
It's clear to me at this point that Hauptmann was using laundered ransom money. But that doesn't eliminate anyone else from involvement especially since we had eyewitnesses that we must rely on to convict Hauptmann saying there were before he is found.
Another point..... I recently found that a person who worked in an establishment where at least (2) ransom bills were passed was found to have lived in Jane Faulkner's old apartment. I can't find anything about this in the NJSP files - only in an FBI report. So this development doesn't appear to be pursued. That's one garage I'd like to tear down or at least pursue along further lines. For me, to say this guy had no involvement is guess-work based upon lack of information. To say it isn't needed is what scares me.
I'd like to go over this too once you get back to your files. From what I have, there is very little on paper to explain some and nothing to explain all of this. He's broke on paper which is the source for many "Lone Wolf Revisionists" to say it was his motivation to commit the crime.
We would assume the primary motivation is money. Would we assume the $50,000 price tag? Would we assume the $20,000 reduction? There's a lot that goes on here that doesn't fit in with what we may consider primary or obvious - wouldn't you agree? And also, of course, some things do as well.
One of the things Lewis tried to get Kelly to flip on was a statement he heard Lindbergh say to Gow. Was it said? Should we ignore the possibility it was? It's my position we look at everything. Can it fit? If not then its laid to rest forever (in my mind). Are there alternative explanations for it if it was? Then I must consider that as the reason as well as any other one that makes sense for that matter. See where I am going?
Both you and Kevin have suggested in the past this crime might have been something other then an intended, and "simple" kidnapping for ransom. There must be something in your mind (or gut) telling you this and for good reason if you ask me. Kevin just pointed something out in the ransom note which I think you've commented on as well some years back.
Wouldn't you make arrangements to look after a live child before you kidnap him? So was the child murdered in cold blood? In short, was there a plan, or was this entire thing last minute, and seat of the pants - adlibbing his way through everything?
From what I have on Steinweg it could have been ransom. He claims that Reilly screwed up his testimony. Everything the Police did indicate they too believed it could have been ransom.
Yes, Fisch did have money and spent it there before Hauptmann gives him the $2000. There's nothing in the reports concerning his borrowing this money but there is information about his borrowing amounts from, among others, Mrs. Hile in the past. Nothing here although I won't say its an impossible suggestion just that I believe the Police would have killed to come up with an explanation like that for him concerning this.
Personally, I'd like to start as far back as possible with Fisch. Document everything we can in order to get a feel for what he does or doesn't do. Where some money comes from. How he has money to some but dirt poor to others and follow what his hands spend vs. what his paper trail tells us. It might take some time but I don't think many have done so before so it might be time for this to happen.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2009 9:28:01 GMT -5
Yes it is a circular argument and for good reason. That's because names of possible suspects and theories abound but no one ever takes the time to detail just exactly how a group or gang could be assembled, communicate, participate, and be compensated without leaving a trace. Just take the recruitment for example, you would have one chance and only one to approach someone with a proposal of involvement. If they decline and are not involved they then possess the knowledge of the crime or at least the evidence of it's planning and "recruiter" ( whom I assume would be the "mastermind"). Then there is the communication required between all involved. You just can't do this without leaving some evidence of a trail. And it's not like no one has looked. The whole idea of some type of gang being involved reminds me exactly of the often made claim of Bornmann substituting the ladder rail. It's entertaining stuff but when asked for exact details on how this might be accomplished all I hear is silence. Conspiracy theories are interesting , but unless they take into account the realities of human action they are destined to remain in the realm of fiction. BTW, I accept that enrichment could take on forms other than money. That, however, actually would be an easier trail to follow as it would require more in the way of a personal relationship and the reward would be difficult if not impossible to hide.
You think that it takes more than one person to case a house? I think what it comes down to is that you find it hard to believe that one person could have committed this crime. I would say that I believe the same thing if I assume it was a proper kidnapping. However, that still makes it a belief. The fact is that one person could have performed all of the physical acts required, even if that seems hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 26, 2009 7:43:40 GMT -5
Michael--yes I agree. Without being too specific I want to try and pinpoint another form of less than obvious Cui Bono. It is common for businesses and individuals to make contributions to political campaigns. Often to both competeing candidates simultaneously! Later when one or the other gets elected(duh?)...what do you suppose, they award certain Gov contracts to that large donor, lets say Enron for example--right from the White House? Now what if someone connected directly or periferally to the LKC were later on to be on the recieving end of any public moneys or Gov contracts? Would that be considered noteworthy or just another coincidence? Also, if I were to divvy up the LKC ransom, my distribution would be: - JFC--$20K--the money he withheld @ St. Raymonds
- Fisch--$20K for his role:CJ
- BRH--$12K--gopher
- JJ Faulkner/Nosovitzky--$12K (forgery)
- Bit actors and actresses--$6K (incidentals)
- Trouble is $30,000 is still missing? Quite a huge chunk? Never recovered?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2009 16:55:53 GMT -5
The great thing about that idea Rick is that the whole cost of the kidnapping could be tax deductible! Maybe the "mastermind" was an accountant??
BTW, I'm curious if BRH only received 20k and almost 15k was found in his garage, what was he living on for 2 1/2 years??
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 27, 2009 4:31:13 GMT -5
I think you're ignoring the point I made. We don't have to have the kind of detailed investigation there was of Hauptmann. We just have to apply common sense and basic forensic accounting. Who else was living with no apparent income. And who was living as well as Hauptmann. Let's start there. It doesn't require huge investigation. Who had no visible means of income and yet was living well. I can't think of anyone, but I'm happy to be contradicted.
We know that Hauptmann made a very small amount of money from carpentry post-March 1932. However, since you yourself accept he spent most of his time at the brokerage house he couldn't have had the time (and I don't believe he had the inclination) to make much money in this way. In addition, there is little evidence I have seen - or was presented at the trial - of any significant income stream.
If you're referring to him investing on behalf of others, there is no evidence he profited from that. The examples are very few and it seems he did it in order to encourage others to invest with him or to play the big man. From the examples I have seen, the profits made from these small investments were passed on to the people involved so there is nothing to show Hauptmann benefited. Anyone who was fool enough to invest with him would have been sorry because overall he lost in the market.
So what income are you referring to? Let's have the specifics because vague allusions aren't helpful if we want to get to the facts. I will also say that while we know Hauptmann had some other small income, we don't by any stretch understand his expenditure post-March 1932 either. We have the headline items - mortgage, canoe, radio etc - and we know he had rent, clothing and food to cover but we don't know what else was spent. So to my mind the net effect is probably zero.
I'm not sure that I can agree with this. Yes, there was a partnership. But what evidence is there that Fisch benefited from it? He certainly may have, as we don't know to what extent Hauptmann may have given him cash. I believe that Hauptmann was investing in the stock market at Fisch's urging but with his own money, mistakenly believing that the worthless furs were security against the investments. But I'm not aware of any evidence that Fisch directly benefited from this partnership in the sense that money came his way. Do you have something specific?
Michael, really, you can't continue with this uneven comparison. He had income before the crime. So did his wife. He was frugal before the kidnapping. He wasn't afterwards. It's night and day. Will you please do as I've asked and put forward a specific example of pre-March 1932 expenditure which you find suspicious and we can debate that on its merits.
Yes, there is. Hauptmann recorded his income from various jobs in his notebooks. And we know that his wife had steady employment. We know he made a profit on the lunch counter. We know he and Anna had savings, built up over time with small deposits, as one would expect with legitimate income. We don't see anything approaching the huge deposits of 1932 onwards. The paper trial is there - you just have to follow it.
As I've said many times, I think a crime was planned but not necessarily this crime. I think the nursery note is generic, I don't believe the ladder was built for Hopewell. I think the only element of the crime which shows foresight is the signature. I don't see evidence of a plan at any juncture or if there was a plan it was quickly discarded (either because the child died or because Lindbergh called in the authorities).
I remain also convinced that it was possible that it was a one man job. I don't see anything to suggest otherwise. Again, happy to debate specifics. Maybe a separate thread, taking it step by step. Where do you want to start?
On the Fisch stuff, let's do it. I think a good accounting of what we know of his finances is overdue and let's see where it leads us.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 27, 2009 20:34:00 GMT -5
Michael or Rab, is there any indication of unaccountable income for BRH prior to March 32?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 28, 2009 2:11:35 GMT -5
The great thing about that idea Rick is that the whole cost of the kidnapping could be tax deductible! Maybe the "mastermind" was an accountant?? BTW, I'm curious if BRH only received 20k and almost 15k was found in his garage, what was he living on for 2 1/2 years?? Kevin--kudos for your succinct replys! "Brevity is the soul of wit" (William Shakespear) BRH was likely laundering his share of the loot at Steiner-Rouse all along? That found in the garage came from Fisch's share. Maybe Izzy left Bruno holding the Gold Certs with an ulterior motive? Why was anyone hanging onto LKC death notes for 30 months? Not especially bright in retrospect? ["vud i burn if der kinder vas mort?"]
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 28, 2009 6:59:27 GMT -5
Kevin, I've looked at Hauptmann's finances pre-kidnapping and I don't find anything suspicious about them. There are some occasional significant deposits that might suggest Hauptmann hoarding money at home or else making a profit on some money lending or other venture. But these are few and far between and in general there is no basis for suspicion in my view.
I have all the bank statements, the deposit slips, his own notebooks and ledgers. They were both working and he made very good money for a number of years. When he made major purchases - the mortgage, the car, the "vacation", his disastrous foray into the stock market - you can see the corresponding withdrawals from their savings account. That isn't the case post-March 1932 when the cash for everything seems to come out of thin air and there's no obvious income. But as I've said to Michael, if there's something specific then let's look at it. It difficult to debate such generalities as suspicion.
For Rick, I don't believe Hauptmann directly laundered anything at Steiner Rouse. I think he used the proceeds of laundering there. And as for the money in Hauptmann's garage coming from Fisch, please see the archives where I think we laid that particular fairytale to bed long ago. Time to move on.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2009 8:18:22 GMT -5
I think this is the best possibility concerning your speculation here..... Inspector Walsh confronted Condon with his position that HE was the extra person brought in which required the additional 20K. On top of that, it was Condon who brought back the extra 20K which he gave to Lindbergh claiming he "saved" him that amount by talking CJ out of it. BTW, the NJSP were furious because it happened to be the stack containing the higher denominations which they believed would be easily traced. My comment was directed generally toward Kevin's comment. As far as who was living as "well" as Hauptmann without working then I'd have to throw out the two same names I mentioned above: If I really want to get fancy I could start rattling off names like: William Bream, S.K. Biroshak, etc. There are so many of these people scattered throughout the files. I would scratch my head being completely perplexed how people without a job were surviving never mind engaging in personal investigations. Biroshak even traveled to Hopewell. I will come up with some more. I also don't think everyone would handle "hot money" the exact same way. I've seen plenty of letters telling the Governor some of it was "buried." Uhlig communicated to Lewis he was hearing someone got scared after Hauptmann and burned what they had. Of course if this were true, we wouldn't know how they got it, but it shows, at least, that other people thought other options seemed likely other then to spend it like they hit the lottery. As far as Hauptmann - we can point to some big ticket purchases: the canoe, the radio, the boxing tickets..... But we can't explain why he's still living where he is. But before the ransom payment he bought his car. The money can be accounted for, still, it seems out of character for such a "frugal" man. Fact is he's frugal sometimes and isn't others BOTH before and after. Not to the same degree, but he still is. Then he quits his job which according to Agent Frank he absolutely needed at the time. And if that isn't enough, he puts all of his worldly possessions in storage (save what he brings with him), and takes off on a 3 month vacation to see the Country with what little funds he has left. A couple of things..... Interest on the mortgage. I am also referring to his loans to people. He's not doing it for free. What we know about is what the Police turned up. So, safe to say, there probably was more of this going on. Next, I am referring to his investments for people. What I have seen is proof that it happened, that (in cases I know about) small profits were made for them. It's important for a few reasons.... First, he probably made something for doing it. Next, because money going into his stock account, which isn't his, and is being counted as ransom by Agent Frank at trial. This could apply to ANY other outside source, however slight - it adds up. Additionally, we don't know all of the sources due to Hauptmann being tight lipped. In fact, when asked about the Market admitted only that he traded in partnership with Fisch and to the best of my recollection I don't recall him volunteering much outside of explanations covering what they do find. And even then his answers must be carefully verified. He reacted to what they were finding. Sometimes with the truth, sometimes with lies, and sometimes with a blend of both truth & fiction. Additionally, there is evidence that he bought a large number of wooden seats. This is obviously for some sort of project or another, and if we are going to attribute things to Hauptmann's personality then its proper to deduce its a money making venture that is involving his carpentry skills. This is what we do know. I think its a safe bet other like type things had gone on as well but of course, that is always up for debate if one so chooses. It's a double edged sword. First, did Fisch have money or didn't he? I suppose it depends on what the finances tell us. Did he actually give Hauptmann some cash? It appears he did, but again, this is up for debate. If Fisch had money then he's making the Tuscan Sale with his funds. He's purchased furs with his money, inflated or not, it still cost money. Was Fisch sending his own money home? Was Fisch loaning money to Uhlig really his? Did Fisch pay Steinweg with his money? Was the $2000 Hauptmann gave him really his money? If EVERY answer is yes then proof he benefited is lacking. However, if there's one "no" then he benefited. Again, this should bear out once we begin a closer examination. Siglinde put together a nice little time-line which should help me maximize the information I can bring to the table here. General comment not directed to anyone in particular: Please keep in mind that I have a 4-drawer filing cabinet completely devoted to information which relates to this subject and I am still to this day building files which should be added, and tracking down reports for names that I continue to discover that are related. For that reason I could miss something or find something new just within the time we are in our discussion. In fact, its because of discussions that I sometimes do. Furthermore, I could be wrong and need to be double-checked at times. Researching this case is no easy task. You will have others make you believe it is but its because they don't "research" they simply pick up Fisher's book and pretend they're an Expert by plagiarizing his (often seriously flawed) material contain therein. It's fine to rely on books, but we have to cite the source so it can be challenged or support by and through other material. No one is above being wrong or making a mistake, and everyone can learn from everyone. A simple observation from someone not even familiar with the case can wind up being very important. Despite all the files I have the our discussion board is equally as important to me because its a tool that helps me better utilize them. It's not an uneven comparison. Most people simply ignore it but it cannot be. In my opinion it is comparable. At face value there are differences too, but there are similarities. He was frugal before the crime, yet there are examples where he's not. He is still frugal after the crime, yet there are examples where he's not. It's not at the same level, yet, we have to acknowledge both the similarities & differences where they exist. I think saying there were only differences is misleading. His apartment is a perfect example. His allowance he gave his wife is yet another example of him being frugal. I do note some changes, but I can't ignore the similarities either. His income was supposedly just about zeroed out. I'd like to know exactly how you are saying he had money. What is meant by that? He stopped keeping records in the summer of '30. All I can come up with is Mrs. Hauptmann's earnings, which don't exist once they take a trip, $77.26 in the bank, $125.00 for the Warner Stock, and the Mortgage. So if not for the mortgage they had about $200 left. His resources are all but exhausted. So they quit their jobs, put their stuff in storage and take off on a cross-country vacation and you don't think that is worthy of mention for a man as frugal as Hauptmann? If one takes a closer look then it we can see no activity in the Stock Account. We do see in May '31 the balance due of $74.89. So what's Hauptmann do? Well, under such dire circumstances he pays only $50 in order to stretch out the debt to the "end of the year" despite the fact it would earn negative interest. Who does that if they have money to take a cross-country trip? If they are "frugal" shouldn't the alarm bells be sounding? Here is what you asked for: 1. Temporary Quarters. Where's the notation, cost, and available funds to pay for it? Where did the money come from? 2. Storage. Where's the notation, cost, and available funds to pay for it? Where did the money come from? 3. New Apartment. Refresh my memory here. Is there notations and money to show the UPGRADE to this new more expensive place? Not from the Summer of '30 on up to when he re-starts the practice. The Lunch Courter profits were made years earlier and by the time they left for California were long gone. On the Fisch stuff, let's do it. I think a good accounting of what we know of his finances is overdue and let's see where it leads us. I think an original plan being discarded is an interesting theory. As far as the one-man theory though, I can respect any opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I am assuming this only concerns the actual "snatch" on March 1st? It appears that both you and Kevin share very similar views on this. Even now I don't think it would be possible. As I read first hand accounts about how it was back then I just don't see anyone doing anything by accident here and I see help being absolutely necessary. Ok, let's do that in the Financial Section. I am not sure how to start out so if you want to outline an idea for doing so I will follow your lead.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 28, 2009 17:57:31 GMT -5
Is that not a huge red flag? Why would someone who methodically records income/expenses cease doing so? Is it possible that he did keep recording but destroyed the missing ledgers?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2009 18:34:36 GMT -5
In my opinion yes. Anytime someone who is a creature of habit deviates from those tendencies there is a reason. Next, if something happens once, then happens again, we should be looking for the common denominator.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 29, 2009 12:06:53 GMT -5
I don't know that I'd class Fisch as living without an income. He was a furrier and he did trade in furs (even legitimately sometimes). But I agree that we need to know more. I'm away over the weekend but I'll give some thought to how we should go through it. If you have a timeline from Siglinde then probably best to start there - in my experience she's the expert on all things related to Fisch.
In terms of income, I had counted the mortgage interest in my accounting of his income and expenditure. So that's already factored in to the unexplained enrichment. I agree he was probably making some money off of loans but we would need to determine what was a reasonable amount based on the reports available. He wasn't Bank of America but no doubt he was making something.
On his investments for other people I think you are missing something (or else you have reports I haven't seen). The examples I've seen all point to Hauptmann investing with his own money and then giving people the small profits. I haven't seen any examples of people giving him money, him returning the profit and then taking a commission. I do believe he was trying to insinuate himself into that type of business but I have not seen a single example of that in action. I haven't seen a single report of Hauptmann profiting. Do you have something I haven't seen?
On Fisch and whether he benefited, we really need to do the investigation. I'm open minded but I don't currently think he did. I think - as I mentioned - that he was involved in a type of Ponzi scheme, borrowing more money to pay off other people and so perhaps in total a lot of money passing through his hands but in reality only moving the same principal from person to person. I think he saw Hauptmann as a mark and he played him (as we know from the forged fur receipts). Also, we must remember that if we believe Hauptmann was profiting from furs then we must also accept that he was investing in furs and that money - unexplained again - had to come from somewhere.
I do agree that sometimes Hauptmann was frugal and sometimes not. But I still don't think pre- and post-March 1932 are comparable. I'll dig my notes out after the weekend and do my best to respond on the specific points you've raised. Let me ask you this in the meantime: do you actually think the 1931 trip was a vacation? Did they intend to come back? Why did he take his tools?
And on the question of record keeping, I too think it highly significant that there are no records in the 8 months or so leading up to March 1932 (because the accounting of the 1931 trip is a record to me). This was a man who habitually recorded everything. I think that there was a record but he destroyed it. Of course there may be other explanations: he wasn't playing the market any more, he didn't have money to lend people, he wasn't working as regularly and he was probably spending a lot more time looking for work.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2009 13:36:31 GMT -5
Absolutely. But again, there's still the creditability issue concerning what's said and who is saying it. This is going to be a rough venture which will probably lead to some more "side-issue" debating. Only one way to find out.
She's the best with any name, date, and place. I don't have her permission to post it, but I was plan on using it to keep me "honest" crediting her when that happens. I wanted to start back to the Pie Company or do you think that's too far back? One of his former Employees (Bruckman) accused him of attempting to sell loot.
Let me check on this and get back to you Rab.
I agree there's evidence that he engaged in borrowing to pay back others he's borrowed from. Hopefully we can nail all of this down shortly.
His actions aren't rational in relationship to his personal tendencies along with the financial circumstances that existed. He quit his job to do this when he needed it the most. Just like he did at Majestic. Why take any job in the first place?
Absolutely. They stored their property which they certainly would have sold off if they didn't expect to return. Weren't his tools utilized at the various camping sites? Off the top of my head I believe Kloppenberg was planning on coming back too. I believe there's something in one of the Auto-Bios on this. I'll try to find it.
This is a record too. I think its a different type of record but one nevertheless. Did he keep a record like this during his Florida trip?
This is interesting. Can I ask what you base this on, and why, if you are correct, he would destroy them?
I know you are away so whenever you get a chance then I am anxious to get started on the Fisch finances.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 31, 2009 2:15:57 GMT -5
- The Jones letter to Gov Burne is the 2nd overt accusation that Condon being amply rewarded for his participation--only in this case, Jones says the money came out of CALs bank account?
- Is it possible that Condons extortion gang in the Bronx didnt know that Condon had been paid "up Front" for his services? Of course, CJ and his two buddies @ St. Raymonds would acquiese to the cutback of the ransom IF it was JFCs share? However, if it was CAL that paid him off, they might not know that afforhand as well?
- Who else is in the running for paying Condons fees if not CAL? Mrs. Morrow? Dwight Jr? Paul E. Wendel? The Mob? Isadore Fisch? It cant very well be the ransom note author now can it? That would suggest the gang extorting money from CAL in Bronx, doesnt know what the left hand is doing? eg JFC is on the inside and not just the go-between?
- CAL and Condon sometimes work as a "team", thus if you are right, and the ransom was not supposed to be paid(?), then those running the extortion were also not supposed to get caught either? Thats the second reason for withhoding the easily caught $50s. Why werent the $50s on the pre-printed sheets? Its hard for me to see JFC withholding the $50 gold certs without CALs permission--CAL ran the show--with a gun! Isnt it more likely that Condon says to CAL "Im only giving them $50K"? CAL was against recording the serial numbers from the get go.
II> Just to review the bidding again--what proportion of the ransom is easily identifyable as GOLD certs vs. plain olde ordinary bills? Wouldnt the latter more easily fall thru the cracks? What proportion of the ransom money found in BRHs garage was Gold Certs?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2009 7:23:13 GMT -5
This thread is going all over the place. We should probably direct the individual topics to their "homes".........
The "Jones Letter" has some obvious mistakes in it. However, considering the date, I think its understandable IF one is going to consider that Jones and Hauptmann actually communicated. Additionally, for me, when someone wants to "hoax" people they properly research the subject. The mistakes Jone's makes show he couldn't have done that.
CAL being against the ransom # recordings.... This, among others, are true. What I notice people do, as it relates to CAL, is offer up reasons for what he does concerning each individual act. Not wanting the serials recorded seems odd but if you accept his only concern is getting back his son then it could be something that makes sense.
How I look at things like this is to compare all of what he did then ask myself if he is being consistent in his application of those explanations which he gave as the motivating factors for each of his actions. And not only after the kidnapping but before as well.
Condon is the means to the end. He keeps the criminal actions at arms length, and gives information that is necessary for his involvement BUT he's also running interference the entire time. What's the reason? Is he a nut? Is he "one of them?" Or is he someone simply interested in - J U S T I C E? Perhaps, as he once told Agent Turrou, he was afraid for his life?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 31, 2009 8:15:05 GMT -5
Yes, because you are an extremely dedicated and conscientious researcher. Unfortunately the same can not be said for everyone else as clearly evidenced on a certain other board . That's where it can be difficult to be objective. I would never build the kidnap ladder in the manner that Hauptmann did, yet I have to realize that he had a completely different ethic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2009 8:29:37 GMT -5
Good point Kevin.
Some people ARE just stupid. Some people are smart but occasionally do stupid things. Some people, when emotional, do things they never would do if they sat down to actionally consider what they were reacting to.
But let me ask you this: Why did the Police keep the "secret symbol" secret? See my point? One of the things I use to disqualify certain leads is if the information or letters written to the Authorities pre-Hauptmann contained information that had already been solidly disproven through investigation that the Public & News Papers didn't know about yet. So this is kind of the "reverse" of my original argument here.
Jones was where he needed to be in order for his story to have any validity. He obviously wanted to be believed. My biggest issue is why Hauptmann would talk to him or trust him (A Murderer) with this type of information when he wouldn't talk to anyone else. Well, I am assuming that. He may have talked to Fisher but of course he would never disclose "privileged" information. It's why his records were burned.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 31, 2009 9:27:43 GMT -5
Just this single event is confounded by the facts: - At the outset it assumes that Elmer Irey and Frank Wilson did not want to get Charlie Jr back safely enough? Why would they want to take this huge risk to alarm the gang with Gold Certs? Were they only focused on Al Capone? How did they help get Charlie Jr back?
Did they have any "inside information"?
- CAL was able to trump and control every other police attempt to observe or catch the gang--why not this one instance?
How did CAL loose his veto power over Elmer Irey's risky scheme? Or, did CAL just figure the perps werent dumb enough to get caught?
- The immediate release of the published lists of ransom money could not have been botched any less effectively? This alone threatened the safe return of Charlie Jr....IF the Bronx gang actually had him and he was "safe and well"? The end result pretty much speaks for itself.
- Hinsight is always 20/20, but few have the foresight to prevent any serious crime.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 31, 2009 11:21:47 GMT -5
Let's not leave insanity out of the mix, as well. Then there are those who are agenda driven. They act and think based on some preconceived notion regardless of fact ( or should I say in despite of the facts ) . That group seems most prevalent in the reporting and discussion of this case.
Kinda reminds me of someone you recently had an exchange with! ;D
I think that it's understandable that they would get some things right and others wrong without assigning any more significance to those actions than needed. Let's not forget that the police were between a rock and a hard place in this case, a condition only further complicated by the laws of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2009 6:13:31 GMT -5
[JFC]: You told me one of them was in trouble?
[CJ]: Yes.
[JFC]: What will you do with that one? Is that Red Johnson?
[CJ]: No Red Johnson and Betty Gow are innocent would you help.
[JFC]: I certainly would if they were innocent.
[Breslin]: Did he make some reference to the fact or mention that Red Johnson was getting a rough deal from the police?
[JFC]: No only rough deal, but it was so mean, and something aught to be done. I said, "John, I will tell you what I will do, I will help him by stating that you say he is innocent.
[/i] [Bronx Grand Jury, 5-20-32, p21-2] I find this just unbelievable and would really like to explore the possibilities here...
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 28, 2009 11:53:11 GMT -5
Michael, I think you are arguing a particularly thin line here. Basically that because nobody else was investigated to the extent that Hauptmann was that therefore we can't rule out [their] enrichment. That it is a lack of evidence rather than a lack of enrichment. From my point of view there was a lot of investigation of certain people (e.g. Fisch) though I will grant you less of others who one might want to know more about. But we can only work with the evidence in front of us. Using the lack of investigation argument could lead to all sorts of unsubstantiated theories. The reality is that the only person who was central to this who benefited was Hauptmann. You say he didn't live in luxury but it's all relative. He wasn't working, his wife wasn't working. Yet he invested, they vacationed, they had a child, they bought mortgages. How many of their contemporaries were living like that? Seems to me to be rather a high standard for the times. The distraction of pre-March 1932 spending is just that: a distraction. Hauptmann's finances pre-kidnapping are clear and explainable. There is nothing to my mind that stands out as a mystery. The 1931 vacation can't be compared to the 1933 one: they camped, they took along a companion to share costs, they counted every penny along the way, he took his tools. The funding comes from their bank account. Not the case in 1933: they stay in motels, the travel without anyone else, there are no bank account withdrawals for motel or other costs and he returns from vacation and actually deposits money to his account. The comparison is apples and oranges. In terms of Fisch, I'd certainly like to dig in more. On the Steinweg example, I'd have to check the timing again, but my recollection is that the money actually came from Hauptmann. And for the pie factory the money was borrowed. So to my mind there are explanations for what money Fisch did have. He was a con man and that was the source of whatever extra money he had though my sense is that most of the money coming to him was of the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" variety. Almost a Ponzi scheme. And there is absolutely no evidence that he ever gave Hauptmann money to invest in stocks. As I've said in the past, the explanation seems to be that Hauptmann was investing for Fisch but with his [Hauptmann's] money believing that the [worthless] furs provided security. Hauptmann basically admits this in his trial testimony. They were both trying to cheat each other (Hauptmann also admits inflating the value of the stocks) it's just that Fisch was better at it. To me the last great unexplained element of the crime is whether Hauptmann had an accomplice. I think we know enough to know that he was central to it, that he was involved from beginning to end, that he gained the major benefit. But whether he had help is really the great mystery to me. Rab
|
|