|
Post by Bill596 on Jul 4, 2019 14:12:11 GMT -5
The 1929 FRBN notes were released beginning in March 1933.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2019 14:03:32 GMT -5
The ransom money not recovered is lots like a normal treasure hunt story. There's usually a map, and some guy dies just before he can blurt out the instructions to the cave with all the gold bullion in it. I used to think that the stories were funny, but they're not. Too big of a waste of time! So Lindbergh crime and all else - I won't be chasing you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2020 19:38:52 GMT -5
Joe,
Any thoughts on why 1928 series bills were used to pay the ransom? Was there something special about the money that year that made it desirable to use?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2020 20:40:16 GMT -5
Joe, Any thoughts on why 1928 series bills were used to pay the ransom? Was there something special about the money that year that made it desirable to use? Amy, based on the Elmer Irey's desire to populate the majority of the ransom payment with gold notes so that authorities stood a better chance of apprehending the extortionists, I'd have to think the 1928 series would have been the go to and that most of the previous 1922 series would have been out of circulation by April of 1932. Can you tell me where you're going with this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2020 7:32:59 GMT -5
Joe, Any thoughts on why 1928 series bills were used to pay the ransom? Was there something special about the money that year that made it desirable to use? Amy, based on the Elmer Irey's desire to populate the majority of the ransom payment with gold notes so that authorities stood a better chance of apprehending the extortionists, I'd have to think the 1928 series would have been the go to and that most of the previous 1922 series would have been out of circulation by April of 1932. Can you tell me where you're going with this? Ok. I believe that 1928 was the last year gold certificates were printed that would go out for public circulation. So was 1928 the last time money was printed in all forms, gold certificate, silver certificate, reserve notes, bank notes? Could that be the reason all the ransom money was in the 1928 series? I am not going anywhere specifically. As you know, Hauptmann had written two serial numbers on the back side of the closet door in Manfred's room. They were also 1928 series bills, although not ransom bills. I know you have been involved with this case for a long time so I thought I would ask, just in case I might be missing something. Thanks Joe.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 22, 2020 9:34:05 GMT -5
Amy, based on the Elmer Irey's desire to populate the majority of the ransom payment with gold notes so that authorities stood a better chance of apprehending the extortionists, I'd have to think the 1928 series would have been the go to and that most of the previous 1922 series would have been out of circulation by April of 1932. Can you tell me where you're going with this? Ok. I believe that 1928 was the last year gold certificates were printed that would go out for public circulation. So was 1928 the last time money was printed in all forms, gold certificate, silver certificate, reserve notes, bank notes? Could that be the reason all the ransom money was in the 1928 series? Amy, it would be interesting to know the status of the 1922 series bills at the time of the ransom payment, as to whether they were still widely in circulation or had been taken out of circulation as they were turned into the banks before April 1932. I'd venture if there were some still out there but clearly on their way out, including them in the ransom payment might have been recognized as something that would not be taken well by the extortionists. In other words, keep it simple with all 1928 series, but go heavy with gold certificates, as the future move away from gold would not necessarily have been know by CJ and anyone else involved.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 22, 2020 18:58:19 GMT -5
i wonder if also keeping the bills all in the same year would make it a little bit easier for bank tellers, etc. to look for them. easier to only have to double check 1928s rather than any and all gold certs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2020 9:37:10 GMT -5
In other words, keep it simple with all 1928 series, but go heavy with gold certificates, as the future move away from gold would not necessarily have been know by CJ and anyone else involved. I would be very surprised if any of the 1922 series of gold notes were still in circulation by 1932, although I realize anything is possible. If anyone had been hoarding them prior to the depression maybe they would have surfaced out of necessity. It would not have been practical to mix the two series of bills for the ransom. I have learned that the 1928 series is the first series where the bills were printed in a smaller size from those of past printings. I agree that keeping it all uniform would have been the way to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2020 9:38:29 GMT -5
i wonder if also keeping the bills all in the same year would make it a little bit easier for bank tellers, etc. to look for them. easier to only have to double check 1928s rather than any and all gold certs. Yes! That is definitely another factor to consider!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 11, 2020 4:20:10 GMT -5
Imagine finding the rest of the Lindbergh ransom money?
I wonder what kind of news coverage THAT would bring!
The missing loot is one of the biggest mysteries of the Lindbergh case!
Is there money to be made in finding the missing money?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 11, 2020 4:36:48 GMT -5
it will never be found if there is any left which i doubt
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2020 9:06:51 GMT -5
With Hauptmann having accounted for such a high percentage of the 50K, how much more can there be out there, other than in private hands?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2020 10:56:38 GMT -5
it will never be found if there is any left which i doubt Lots of rumors. I think there’s some truth to it having been burned or destroyed by those in possession. There’s also been some rumors about it being buried in the Bronx over the years. In 1961 sources were telling the FBI that someone on Long Island had $14,000 of it, but at least one memo I have says they didn’t have interest in the matter. There’s no doubt that a couple survived and sitting in a collectors safe somewhere. This question can be answered by Wilentz who asked Hauptmann where the rest of the money was while on the stand, and Lt. Smith who asked Hauptmann where the other $35,000 was right after his conviction.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2020 11:22:01 GMT -5
it will never be found if there is any left which i doubt Lots of rumors. I think there’s some truth to it having been burned or destroyed by those in possession. There’s also been some rumors about it being buried in the Bronx over the years. In 1961 sources were telling the FBI that someone on Long Island had $14,000 of it, but at least one memo I have says they didn’t have interest in the matter. There’s no doubt that a couple survived and sitting in a collectors safe somewhere. This question can be answered by Wilentz who asked Hauptmann where the rest of the money was while on the stand, and Lt. Smith who asked Hauptmann where the other $35,000 was right after his conviction. I don't believe it really matters who asked Hauptmann where an additional $35,000 was if the math simply doesn't add up here. LE wasn't always on the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2020 12:24:32 GMT -5
I don't believe it really matters who asked Hauptmann where an additional $35,000 was if the math simply doesn't add up here. LE wasn't always on the ball. Think about what you’re saying Joe. Those “numbers” are coming from these same people. And so you ARE right - it doesn’t add up. As I proved in V2, Agent Frank’s own report has caveats that allow for possibilities the testimony omitted.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2020 13:12:58 GMT -5
I don't believe it really matters who asked Hauptmann where an additional $35,000 was if the math simply doesn't add up here. LE wasn't always on the ball. Think about what you’re saying Joe. Those “numbers” are coming from these same people. And so you ARE right - it doesn’t add up. As I proved in V2, Agent Frank’s own report has caveats that allow for possibilities the testimony omitted. I believe the number of $40,000, which Rab came up years ago, approximates the amount Hauptmann would have gone through in expenses from March 12, 1932 to September 19, 1934, if one also factors in the $14,600 found in the garage. Agent Frank's report comes off as a bit of an attempt at sensationalism, considering its feigned accuracy almost to the dollar, but he had obviously put some relevant accounting practices and thought into it. As for Lt. Smith, how else do you explain his crazy demand for an unreconciled $35,000 other than to subtract the $14,600 found in the garage from the original $50,000 ransom amount. What is the value in what Lt. Smith demanded of Hauptmann, other than to suggest he didn't know what he was talking about in this case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2020 18:39:28 GMT -5
I believe the number of $40,000, which Rab came up years ago, approximates the amount Hauptmann would have gone through in expenses from March 12, 1932 to September 19, 1934. Agent Frank's report comes off as an attempt at sensationalism, considering its feigned accuracy almost to the dollar, but he had obviously put some relevant accounting practices and thought into it. As for Lt. Smith, how else do you explain his crazy demand for another unreconciled $35,000 other than to subtract the $14,600 found in the garage from the original $50,000 ransom amount. What is the value in what Lt. Smith demanded of Hauptmann, other than to suggest he didn't know what he was talking about in this case? The problem with any attempt at totaling expenses in order to account for ransom money is that it must make certain assumptions (e.g. Hauptmann was “broke,” any money spent was a product of ransom, etc.). One can’t read my books and walk away confident that ANY assumption is safe. Frank’s report, unlike his testimony, proves it all by itself. Next, of course that’s where Smith got the figure. Exactly what amount should he have said in order for you to believe it supports my position? Again, what both Wilentz AND Smith prove by asking Hauptmann where the rest was is that they did not believe the testimony.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 12, 2020 9:34:31 GMT -5
joe, i own one the phamflets the bank tellers had to open to compare the serial numbers to the gold notes that was turned in. its only about 3 inches by 6. i cant see how a teller with a line of people could check them right away. i assume they waited for the closing of the bank to do it. i also think alot of them wernt checked because of attitudes toward work, hurry to get out, or dont give a crap.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 12, 2020 12:35:42 GMT -5
joe, i own one the phamflets the bank tellers had to open to compare the serial numbers to the gold notes that was turned in. its only about 3 inches by 6. i cant see how a teller with a line of people could check them right away. i assume they waited for the closing of the bank to do it. i also think alot of them wernt checked because of attitudes toward work, hurry to get out, or dont give a crap. The amount of currency passing through NYC banks even in Depression years, was mind-boggling. I'm surprised tellers actually caught the $5200 or so in ransom funds that was spent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2020 13:04:25 GMT -5
The amount of currency passing through NYC banks even in Depression years, was mind-boggling. I'm surprised tellers actually caught the $5200 or so in ransom funds that was spent. It's why Wilson felt the reward for finding bills was important once they thought people might be fatigued about looking. Also, we have to remember that were people at the NY Federal Reserve, and at the Treasury who's only job was to find Ransom Bills. So there was a safety net in case these bills were missed at the establishments, or local banks. One might argue they failed, or still missed some. Or it could mean they were still in circulation, or never spent. Up to the individual researcher to decide - or not - but to keep the options on the table until a point where they are ready to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 12, 2020 19:09:47 GMT -5
I believe the number of $40,000, which Rab came up years ago, approximates the amount Hauptmann would have gone through in expenses from March 12, 1932 to September 19, 1934. Agent Frank's report comes off as an attempt at sensationalism, considering its feigned accuracy almost to the dollar, but he had obviously put some relevant accounting practices and thought into it. As for Lt. Smith, how else do you explain his crazy demand for another unreconciled $35,000 other than to subtract the $14,600 found in the garage from the original $50,000 ransom amount. What is the value in what Lt. Smith demanded of Hauptmann, other than to suggest he didn't know what he was talking about in this case? The problem with any attempt at totaling expenses in order to account for ransom money is that it must make certain assumptions (e.g. Hauptmann was “broke,” any money spent was a product of ransom, etc.). One can’t read my books and walk away confident that ANY assumption is safe. Frank’s report, unlike his testimony, proves it all by itself. Next, of course that’s where Smith got the figure. Exactly what amount should he have said in order for you to believe it supports my position? Again, what both Wilentz AND Smith prove by asking Hauptmann where the rest was is that they did not believe the testimony. I don't think it's that important at all whether or not Hauptmann had just enough to get by, a little nest egg in the satchel or was so skinny he had to have his lights turned off before he felt compelled to pony up the rent. Plus or minus $50,000 was the key consideration and difference maker in his mind. That was his only goal beyond day-to-day survival. And obviously, by enlisting his services at the Majestic during the month of March, he still retained enough doubt as to whether he'd be receiving that royal payday. Or do you have another reason he might have suddenly started looking for work?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2020 19:23:58 GMT -5
I don't think it's that important at all whether or not Hauptmann had just enough to get by, a little nest egg in the satchel or was so skinny he had to have his lights turned off before he felt compelled to pony up the rent. Plus or minus $50,000 was the key consideration and difference maker in his mind. That was his only goal beyond day-to-day survival. And obviously, by enlisting his services at the Majestic during the month of March, he still retained enough doubt as to whether he'd be receiving that royal payday. Or do you have another reason he might have suddenly started looking for work? Define "suddenly." Upon his return from California he went to Grizzle looking to get his old job back. The only reason he went over to see Pescia, on Feb 27 looking for work, was because of Fredrikson. After he paid his $10 fee he was, beyond all doubt, told to expect to start on March 1st. Anyway, it IS important if the idea is to get the scenario correct. If he wasn't spending proceeds of ransom but instead gambling winnings (as an example) then counting it toward the ransom total is misleading isn't it? Or if he was using a stash of money he kept hidden from his wife. Or if he collected on a debt owed to him. Or if he spend one of those $500 dollar bills whose serial number was on the back of the door. Get the picture?
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Sept 26, 2020 2:43:44 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Lewis Bornmann could have taken ransom money when searching Hauptman apt? He had opportunity when he searched by himself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2020 9:45:59 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Lewis Bornmann could have taken ransom money when searching Hauptman apt? He had opportunity when he searched by himself. As I always say, anyone connected to this case had a "moral compass." Exactly what type of nefarious behavior they were willing to engage in depended upon that. Like what we see with Lewis and Kelly selling crime scene photos, NY and NJ beating the hell out of Hauptmann, fudged documentation, or BS testimony. The question to ask oneself is "why" are they doing it. As I've also stated, they beat Hauptmann because they believed he was involved and wanted him to squeal on the others. Next, most of what was testified to was to support the State's theory - not to convict an "innocent" man because no one believed he wasn't involved. But when it came to making a little extra "scratch," any trooper knew that could easily be obtained by leaking to the press. Also, people who did something "wrong" usually get noticed which is exemplified by how much I've revealed. Those who did not were either missed or were completely on the level. When it comes to whether or not Bornmann may have taken some of the ransom money I've never seen anything to indicate that. Next, I'd ask myself "why" he'd do it and I don't see any reason for it. What was found was documented so nothing could have disappeared after that. If the idea is that he found it before that and kept it I'm not sure what he planned on doing with it. After everything was over some, there's some evidence that investigators kept certain things as souvenirs. We know this because some things were returned in the 80s. It's possible here, as it involves ransom money, that a couple of bills were kept but I have no evidence of it. What I do have is that time where Peacock showed Ellis Parker a ransom bill that he told him he got in Atlantic City. So this seems to be an after the fact type situation and it isn't documented anywhere else.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 26, 2020 18:44:46 GMT -5
Does anyone think that Lewis Bornmann could have taken ransom money when searching Hauptman apt? He had opportunity when he searched by himself. As I always say, anyone connected to this case had a "moral compass." Exactly what type of nefarious behavior they were willing to engage in depended upon that. Like what we see with Lewis and Kelly selling crime scene photos, NY and NJ beating the hell out of Hauptmann, fudged documentation, or BS testimony. The question to ask oneself is "why" are they doing it. As I've also stated, they beat Hauptmann because they believed he was involved and wanted him to squeal on the others. Next, most of what was testified to was to support the State's theory - not to convict an "innocent" man because no one believed he wasn't involved. But when it came to making a little extra "scratch," any trooper knew that could easily be obtained by leaking to the press. Also, people who did something "wrong" usually get noticed which is exemplified by how much I've revealed. Those who did not were either missed or were completely on the level. When it comes to whether or not Bornmann may have taken some of the ransom money I've never seen anything to indicate that. Next, I'd ask myself "why" he'd do it and I don't see any reason for it. What was found was documented so nothing could have disappeared after that. If the idea is that he found it before that and kept it I'm not sure what he planned on doing with it. After everything was over some, there's some evidence that investigators kept certain things as souvenirs. We know this because some things were returned in the 80s. It's possible here, as it involves ransom money, that a couple of bills were kept but I have no evidence of it. What I do have is that time where Peacock showed Ellis Parker a ransom bill that he told him he got in Atlantic City. So this seems to be an after the fact type situation and it isn't documented anywhere else. I think Dave H. had some ransom bills and some other items gifted to him by Lewis Bornmann, whom he had befriended. The 1934 Hauptmann 4U 13 41 license plate now at the NJSP museum is another good example of souvenirs kept by investigators. It appeared on eBay about 10 years ago, being sold by a guy by the name of Willie Barrineau who at the time was trying to divest of a long established business set up by his father Bucko. At the time, I bid on that plate and was high bidder although I didn't meet the reserve price. He told me it had resided in Florida for many years before it was acquired by him. Not knowing any more of the story, I've always believed one of the Lindbergh NYPD Investigators who retired there, just kept it with him for many years. I believe the other plate was cut up into bite-sized pieces and disbursed among a number of investigators.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 26, 2020 20:48:18 GMT -5
its intersting in the hall and mills case the new book on it the author thinks people got paid off from mrs hall police included.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2020 7:13:39 GMT -5
its intersting in the hall and mills case the new book on it the author thinks people got paid off from mrs hall police included. Ive got a list somewhere. Some got money and some got jobs. Prosecutor Beekman was “supposed” to have been paid off too.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 27, 2020 10:17:54 GMT -5
I don't think it's that important at all whether or not Hauptmann had just enough to get by, a little nest egg in the satchel or was so skinny he had to have his lights turned off before he felt compelled to pony up the rent. Plus or minus $50,000 was the key consideration and difference maker in his mind. That was his only goal beyond day-to-day survival. And obviously, by enlisting his services at the Majestic during the month of March, he still retained enough doubt as to whether he'd be receiving that royal payday. Or do you have another reason he might have suddenly started looking for work? Define "suddenly." Upon his return from California he went to Grizzle looking to get his old job back. The only reason he went over to see Pescia, on Feb 27 looking for work, was because of Fredrikson. After he paid his $10 fee he was, beyond all doubt, told to expect to start on March 1st. Anyway, it IS important if the idea is to get the scenario correct. If he wasn't spending proceeds of ransom but instead gambling winnings (as an example) then counting it toward the ransom total is misleading isn't it? Or if he was using a stash of money he kept hidden from his wife. Or if he collected on a debt owed to him. Or if he spend one of those $500 dollar bills whose serial number was on the back of the door. Get the picture? The clear picture I'm getting here is your overlooking of the obvious, focusing instead on highly questionable sources for Hauptmann to have drawn money at a time when it seems very clear he had very little. What sort of substantial gambling winnings are you suggesting he had squirreled away from his penny and nickel pinochle playing? In the context of the $50,000 payday he was looking forward to, considering estimates of his net worth on April 1, 1932, not to mention his “lights out” fiasco, your suggestions here are at best, speculative. And as I’ve already pointed out, he’s looking for a job right in the middle of ransom negotiations. So he’s obviously not sitting on much of a nest egg, is he now?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 27, 2020 18:01:37 GMT -5
intersting turn of events in that case. hope richard writes a follow up book on this case
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2020 20:34:30 GMT -5
The clear picture I'm getting here is your overlooking of the obvious, focusing instead on highly questionable sources for Hauptmann to have drawn money at a time when it seems very clear he had very little. What sort of substantial gambling winnings are you suggesting he had squirreled away from his penny and nickel pinochle playing? In the context of the $50,000 payday he was looking forward to, considering estimates of his net worth on April 1, 1932, not to mention his “lights out” fiasco, your suggestions here are at best, speculative. And as I’ve already pointed out, he’s looking for a job right in the middle of ransom negotiations. So he’s obviously not sitting on much of a nest egg, is he now? Again, Joe, this is about what Special Agent Frank wrote in his report. For whatever reason you are making it about me. Next, we obviously approach this differently. For example, what exactly is "highly questionable" once considering someone you believe is a criminal? Seriously. Whatever example I give is merely a possibility as provided for by Frank's report. You know, the man history relies on to put 100% of the ransom in Hauptmann's hands. So my point is "we" cannot have it both ways. There is testimony, and then there is the report. The omissions in the testimony should be considered. If they weren't worthy of mention then I don't think Frank would have included them in his report. Furthermore, by your very own position, Hauptmann would not have quit his job with Grizzle to take off on that cross-country trip. Instead he should have been looking for a 2nd job. I mean the man didn't have a nest egg right? In fact upon his return and without a job he wasn't standing in any bread line and even did some things that are not the actions of man who is "broke" (I've mentioned them all before). And yet he still went back to Grizzle for a job. So look at ALL of his actions and not just those you happen to like THEN see where it leads you. My guess is to other possibilities - but that's only a guess.
|
|