|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2020 20:44:28 GMT -5
intersting turn of events in that case. hope richard writes a follow up book on this case I've got a stockpile of sources, and even a couple of books you might not have heard of. What I know is from what I've read while researching something connected to this case. If there was ever an example of a "conspiracy" we can add Hall-Mills to the pile - can't we? Honestly, I have yet to read any book cover to cover and I'm waiting for the day where I am completely free of this case before I do so.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 28, 2020 5:18:34 GMT -5
yes mike, you will get sick of this case at some point, i am and i love reading about other old cases even gilded age murders like the stanford white murder because hes buried near me
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2020 10:38:42 GMT -5
yes mike, you will get sick of this case at some point, i am and i love reading about other old cases even gilded age murders like the stanford white murder because hes buried near me Problem is there is too much to learn about this case. I am finishing up a crash course on the beginning of the American Communism movement. Not because I want to, believe me, but because its attached to the subject I am writing about. So I not only continue to learn but it keeps me very busy. Once again, I guess that might qualify me as what Doherty claims as having too much time on my hands? For me it means that I will actually know what I am writing about before I do. I never heard of the Standford White case. We've had one here, very recently, concerning the death of John Sheridan Jr.. Sounds crazy but without access to everything, like we have in this case, there's no way to know. That's why we are so lucky to have the opportunity to actually review everything.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 28, 2020 12:09:45 GMT -5
yes mike, you will get sick of this case at some point, i am and i love reading about other old cases even gilded age murders like the stanford white murder because hes buried near me Wolfman - sent you a message about a great non-Lindbergh book I would like to send you.
|
|
|
Post by DDD on Sept 28, 2020 15:25:26 GMT -5
If my question offended anyone, I apologize. My thinking was Burnmann search The apartment alone on a couple occasions. The next reason was most of the investigators where underpaid law enforcement and the widespread corruption.
i just ask a simple questions. I was only looking for a yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 28, 2020 15:31:37 GMT -5
i guess your studying about senator mcarthy and his escapades
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2020 18:16:07 GMT -5
i guess your studying about senator mcarthy and his escapades You’re way off. Think back to the “Lusk Committee.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2020 18:21:03 GMT -5
If my question offended anyone, I apologize. I am quite sure no one was offended and I know I wasn’t. I’m just not used to answering anything with a one word answer and tried to explain “why” I came to the conclusion I did.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 28, 2020 19:58:55 GMT -5
got cha
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 28, 2020 22:48:31 GMT -5
If my question offended anyone, I apologize. My thinking was Burnmann search The apartment alone on a couple occasions. The next reason was most of the investigators where underpaid law enforcement and the widespread corruption. i just ask a simple questions. I was only looking for a yes or no. Your question is legit. I've wondered why no clean money was found in Hauptmann's apartment. He did a lot of laundering. Where did he hide the laundered bills? Weren't there any?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 29, 2020 11:16:06 GMT -5
Your question is legit. I've wondered why no clean money was found in Hauptmann's apartment. He did a lot of laundering. Where did he hide the laundered bills? Weren't there any? This is a very good point. Especially when one considers authorities seemed to think so much of this "clean" money went into Hauptmann's bank accounts. Fact is, after several large deposits, there were large withdraws starting with the one given to Fisch on November 17, 1933. After that there were "small" deposits here and there but many more similar withdraws. For example, Hauptmann made bank deposits of $40 on 9/1, $40 on 9/11 then on 9/17 withdrew $80 from his brokerage but deposited $50 into his bank account. So considering the laundering that had to have been going on, I agree, if in the possession of Hauptmann it should have been concealed in that house somewhere. So what did police find of any monetary value? Six $20.00 gold pieces.
A brown wallet containing one $5, four $1, two dimes, and one penny.
$46 of Confederate Money from Georgia.
An empty child's bank.
An empty money belt.
A "silverware" set that may or may not have actually been silver. The money found in the brown wallet is probably the one Hauptmann had on him when he was arrested because his wallet contained one $20 gold ransom bill, one $5, and four $1. This was listed as being located in the metal security box in some inventories, but I don't see it listed in Special Agent Seery's report. There might be a report that explains this but as I sit here I don't recall one. If anyone can refresh my memory about it I'm all ears. I can't see any cop stealing any money out of that home anytime after his arrest. Seems to me most were anxious to get their names attached to any type of discovery. Besides, once beaten, there was no telling what Hauptmann might have said. If he confessed and the money was gone they would have to worry about much more than simply being fired. I've always believed there were multiple people involved with laundering ransom money too. As I wrote in V2, Hauptmann spent considerable time on Wall Street and wasn't laundering anything while there. What he told Hager about not having any money to loan him at the time but to check later ... then after 14 days had it to lend him and gave him four $100 bills (V2 page 467). This tells me there was something a little more complicated going on outside of a carpenter laundering ransom money. There's also that situation with Singer (V2 page 569). Sounds like an excuse but I believe there was something to this as well.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 29, 2020 11:52:21 GMT -5
Your question is legit. I've wondered why no clean money was found in Hauptmann's apartment. He did a lot of laundering. Where did he hide the laundered bills? Weren't there any? This is a very good point. Especially when one considers authorities seemed to think so much of this "clean" money went into Hauptmann's bank accounts. Fact is, after several large deposits, there were large withdraws starting with the one given to Fisch on November 17, 1933. After that there were "small" deposits here and there but many more similar withdraws. For example, Hauptmann made bank deposits of $40 on 9/1, $40 on 9/11 then on 9/17 withdrew $80 from his brokerage but deposited $50 into his bank account. So considering the laundering that had to have been going on, I agree, if in the possession of Hauptmann it should have been concealed in that house somewhere. So what did police find of any monetary value? Six $20.00 gold pieces.
A brown wallet containing one $5, four $1, two dimes, and one penny.
$46 of Confederate Money from Georgia.
An empty child's bank.
An empty money belt.
A "silverware" set that may or may not have actually been silver. The money found in the brown wallet is probably the one Hauptmann had on him when he was arrested because his wallet contained one $20 gold ransom bill, one $5, and four $1. This was listed as being located in the metal security box in some inventories, but I don't see it listed in Special Agent Seery's report. There might be a report that explains this but as I sit here I don't recall one. If anyone can refresh my memory about it I'm all ears. I can't see any cop stealing any money out of that home anytime after his arrest. Seems to me most were anxious to get their names attached to any type of discovery. Besides, once beaten, there was no telling what Hauptmann might have said. If he confessed and the money was gone they would have to worry about much more than simply being fired. I've always believed there were multiple people involved with laundering ransom money too. As I wrote in V2, Hauptmann spent considerable time on Wall Street and wasn't laundering anything while there. What he told Hager about not having any money to loan him at the time but to check later ... then after 14 days had it to lend him and gave him four $100 bills (V2 page 467). This tells me there was something a little more complicated going on outside of a carpenter laundering ransom money. There's also that situation with Singer (V2 page 569). Sounds like an excuse but I believe there was something to this as well.
The $2,000 Hauptmann gave Fisch on November 14, 1933, was a return of the $2,000 Fisch had given Hauptmann on July 10, 1933, to invest in the stock market. Hauptmann never invested that money. He put it in his savings account at the Central Savings Bank. He then withdrew it on Nov. 14, 1933, and returned it to Fisch. This transaction, therefore, evens out at $0. Hauptmann's bank statements show these two transactions. It wasn't as if Hauptmann was generous with Isidor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 30, 2020 9:55:58 GMT -5
The $2,000 Hauptmann gave Fisch on November 14, 1933, was a return of the $2,000 Fisch had given Hauptmann on July 10, 1933, to invest in the stock market. Hauptmann never invested that money. He put it in his savings account at the Central Savings Bank. He then withdrew it on Nov. 14, 1933, and returned it to Fisch. This transaction, therefore, evens out at $0. Hauptmann's bank statements show these two transactions. It wasn't as if Hauptmann was generous with Isidor.
This is a whole different topic to explore.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 21, 2021 8:45:42 GMT -5
Michael's comment is intriguing: "There was something more complicated going on outside of a carpenter laundering ransom money." Anna's salary would have paid most of the household expenses, but how do we explain Hauptmann's ability to produce hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars at this time of the Depression while working as a carpenter on a part-time basis? The business of investing money on the stock market could hardy have been successful at this time. Yet Hauptmann lived well for the most part even before the kidnapping. So what could have been his real source of income? We look at the times, not just the Great Depression but also the Era of Prohibition. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution was not rescinded until Dec. of 1933. Alcohol was smuggled in great quantities from Canada and into New York via the Hudson and East Rivers where the traffic was not well controlled. According to Ellen Lawson, "Neither the Coast Guard nor the Customs patrolled the upper Hudson. Little is known about Canadian liquor smuggled south by car or truck to New York City." We usually associate the smuggling of alcohol and drugs to Mobs and Gangs, but individuals also were hired to move booze from the ships to speakeasies or other recipients. Hauptmann lived in an area where activity was possible. He frequented Hunter's Island on the East River, not only for picnics in summer but also reportedly in winter for other types of activities (soccer in winter). So I am suggesting that Hauptmann may have been a rum-runner, not necessarily a gang member, but an individual who transported liquor from Canada from boats docking on the Hudson and East Rivers to speakeasies and other recipients in New York City and possibly New Jersey. There were many such individuals, including farmers in the Mid-West who supplemented their farming income by such transportation. I recall the trip Hauptmann supposedly made to Manitoba, a province that supplied Minnesota during Prohibition. At this point, I only make the suggestion as a real possibility for Hauptmann's extra-curricular activities that provided income for his personal trips, hunting expeditions, etc. until he somehow acquired the ransom money. At that point, he would not have needed to make an effort to involve himself in the rum-running.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 21, 2021 9:18:54 GMT -5
A recent comment was just made on another thread that Rudolf Haase, a friend of Hauptmann whose picture appears in two photos of Hauptmann party groups, was said to be working at a "wine cellar in Astoria." Astoria is not far from the East River. Was this employment during Prohibition?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 21, 2021 10:19:45 GMT -5
Commenting on Emil Mueller's statement re: Hauptmann playing soccer on Hunter's Island on Feb. 27,28, and 29 of 1932. One does not play soccer at that time of year and not with only three men (one man is unnamed). But it is possible that the three of them were indeed on Hunter's Island at that time but doing a "business" that could not have been legally mentioned. Another reason Mueller's statement should have been investigated.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 21, 2021 11:14:06 GMT -5
A recent comment was just made on another thread that Rudolf Haase, a friend of Hauptmann whose picture appears in two photos of Hauptmann party groups, was said to be working at a "wine cellar in Astoria." Astoria is not far from the East River. Was this employment during Prohibitieon? The Waldorf Astoria is a famous hotel in Manhattan located on the corner of Park Ave & 49th St. Prohibition was over when Hauptmann was arrested and this person was interviewed. He worked there in 1934.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 21, 2021 12:11:57 GMT -5
The two photos in which Haase appears must have been taken prior to the rescinding of the 18th Amendment. One photo depicts guests at Hauptmann's New Year's party on Jan. 1 of 1933. It was not likely that the Waldorf Astoria would have been hosting a wine cellar before the end of Prohibitiion. Haase must have been working at a different job in 1932 and 1933, that is, before his statement to the police in 1934. "Wine Cellar" was also a name of a restaurant in Astoria, NYC. at that time.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 24, 2021 14:32:32 GMT -5
In "Dark Corners" Vol. III Michael writes concerning a George V. Villiers. A slip of paper which belonged to George Villiers, a former pupil of John F. Condon was "discovered among Hauptmann's possessions." Villiers was brother-in-law to Thomas Francis McManus who was allegedly engaged in discussion with John F. Condon on March 1, 1932, the evening of the Lindbergh kidnapping. These facts may have some important connection to the kidnapping case. George V. Villiers jr. is buried in the National Cemetery located in East Farmington NY. He was born on June 27, 1889 and died on Sept. 30, 1965, so he would have been age 42 at the time of the kidnapping. He served in the US Army in World War I as a Corporal. He is buried in Section Y Site 3625 in the National Cemetery. His wife Margaret Villiers is buried beside him. She was born Nov. 22 in 1882 and died in April of 1956 at age 74. She was seven years older than her husband George. She was the sister of Thomas F. McManus who was born on Sept. 2, 1889 and who passed away on Dec. 17, 1965. Thomas served as a sergeant in the US Army during World War I. The dates of these two are close, both in birth and death. Alice M. McManus, wife of Thomas, is also buried next to her husband in section 2L Site 5106. Alice was born on Sept. 9, 1894 and died on May 13, 1976. According to the dates given, George Villiers would have been a student of John Condon early in Condon's career. Questions: What was on the slip of paper found in Hauptmann's possession? Did Villiers know something about John Condon that he wanted to share with Hauptmann? Is there any date associated with this slip of paper? Villiers and McManus must have been very close. McManus was a bank clerk in 1932. Did he pick up on something suspicious in his discussion with Condon on March 1? Was Margaret McManus Villiers also John Condon's student at one time? if so, did she have any problems with him? The questions could go on, but the important links are missing; yet they may very well be important to the investigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping case.
The dates given are those found on the grave markers, by the way. Another source gives Margaret's birth date as 1905.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 23, 2021 1:59:09 GMT -5
Here is a strange coincidence: Prohibition ended in the US on Dec.5, 1933, the very date that Hauptmann gave a going-away party for Isidor Fisch who was returning to Germany to visit his family, it was said, to discuss establishing an international fur business with his brother Pinkus. So what was the partnership between Hauptmann and Fisch really all about? How did Hauptmann make his money during the Depression? Investing in the stock market may have been a front for what he was actually doing. He bought a new car in 1931 and lived in an apartment that cost him fifty dollars a month in rent. He could have lived in an apartment for half that price. And why go to Hunter Island in the winter? Not likely to play soccer at that time of the year. The big business at that time was found in the liquor traffic; boats carrying bottles of alcohol used the Hudson River and East River. Long Island was a favorite spot for business, Manhattan another. Contact boats were sent to shore with their booty which where taken, not by mob members, but private citizens who were paid to take the bottles to speakeasies or places of storage along the way, like abandoned chicken coops or unused old buildings along the road. The stuff was taken to New Jersey. Hauptmann may have made his money engaged in this activity. He had the car, he had the time, he had the energy the opportunity, but neither he nor his friends who knew would have made public what the business was all about. When prohibition ended, it signaled the end of the liquor traffic and time to establish a new venture. Meanwhile, Hauptmann could live very comfortably on the ransom money until he would venture into new territory.
|
|