|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2020 14:34:33 GMT -5
Today would have been Isidor Fisch's 115th birthday.
Afflicted with TB, for which there was no cure at the time, he died March 29, 1934.
I've dedicated an entire chapter to him in V2 starting on page 562.
Many believe Hauptmann lied about Fisch's involvement. Others believe Hauptmann was telling the truth. Are either of these the answer - or does the truth lie somewhere in the middle?
What do you believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 26, 2020 15:04:07 GMT -5
Fisch has always been a question mark to me. He could've just been a handy name that Hauptmann threw to police, trying to put the whole thing off on a dead guy who obviously couldn't confirm or deny, or, like I think Hauptmann was, Fisch could've been connected to the kidnappers indirectly. Like, the kidnappers approached Fisch to launder some of the ransom in the same way I think they approached Hauptmann to build a ladder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2020 10:05:53 GMT -5
Fisch has always been a question mark to me. He could've just been a handy name that Hauptmann threw to police, trying to put the whole thing off on a dead guy who obviously can't confirm or deny, or, like I think Hauptmann was, Fisch could've been connected to kidnappers indirectly. Like, the kidnappers approached Fisch to launder some of the ransom in the same way I think they approached Hauptmann to build a ladder. So many different scenarios to consider.... If he didn't actually meet Fisch until after the crime that's important. However, if Hauptmann's position in mentioning Fisch was to take the heat off himself, then of course he wouldn't want anyone to think they knew each other previous so there's a need to distance himself from March 1. Considering Hauptmann had help in laundering ransom, if one doesn't fully believe the "Fisch Story," this doesn't mean Fisch wasn't involved with that part of it. In fact, its hard to believe he didn't know about the ransom money "aspect" of his business partnership with Hauptmann. This idea that he was broke and sleeping on park benches, for me, was merely a ruse - at times by Fisch when he was alive, and definitely by the Prosecution who knew it wasn't true in order to neutralize the accusation against him. Furthermore, the evidence which shows he was duping Hauptmann by creating fake invoices show he's no Angel. And that assumes Hauptmann actually had no idea about the true nature of them. I've even seen it suggested, from Rab I think, that these two men were actually fooling each other. It's a tangled mess. I happen to believe that what Hauptmann told Singer was true (V2 page 569), that is, he could not loan out money without his partner's (Fisch) consent. So the options seem to be: Kidnapping & Extortion & Laundering
Extortion & Laundering
Laundering
None of the Above (Completely Innocent)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 15:49:08 GMT -5
Considering Hauptmann had help in laundering ransom, if one doesn't fully believe the "Fisch Story," this doesn't mean Fisch wasn't involved with that part of it. Silly question I suppose, but how do we know any of the ransom money was laundered? If there actually had been laundering done, why wasn't all of that money laundered and not just some of it? |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 29, 2020 4:08:38 GMT -5
A picture of Isidor Fisch with Mrs. Hauptmann and two other ladies was once posted on this board. There is a car in the background,
probably Hauptmann's Dodge sedan with the driver inside who may well be Hauptmann himself. The two women were said to
resemble Henry Ellerson's mother and sister. The women are all wearing furs of some kind, hats and stoles, and everyone is
joining hands. Fisch and Mrs. Hauptmann are easily recognized. One woman has a map on her lap. No date is given--that
would be interesting to know though and help to pinpoint the time of the Hauptmann/Fisch relationship.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 29, 2020 4:50:48 GMT -5
I just found a picture in my own files which might be of interest here. This photo is said to have been found in the
Hauptmann family album and is called "John's birthday party." Isidor Fisch appears in the photo. One of the
individuals resembles Hauptmann. Others appear to be Karl Henkel and Henry Uhlig, friends of Fisch.
The photo is dated 1931. Not sure who "John" is though.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2020 8:29:46 GMT -5
My own position is that Hauptmann and Fisch were in cahoots with the laundering of ransom money. I too Michael, find it very difficult to believe they could not have been collaborating on this activity based on the nature of their business relationship, and given the high degree of likelihood that Hauptmann had the money from April 2, 1932, and probably had met Fisch before or about that time. As you point out in V2 – 568, Agent Frank seems to have drawn a reasonable connection between what is apparently a $15,000 credit towards Fisch from page 73 of Hauptmann’s account book and the $14,600 garage discovery. I’d venture it was Fisch’s role to seek out ways and means of disposing of potentially larger sums of the ransom money, specifically gold notes, which of course would have become increasingly difficult to get rid of by the time he departed for Germany in December 1933. Hauptmann would have then been entrusted to do what he could with the garage hoard until his partner’s return. I’m not sure if Fisch’s poverty act was entirely a ruse. I believe he was just someone who though his nature could take thrift to the extreme, yet he had no hesitation in flashing a wad of cash when he had it. Bottom line though, he loved money pretty much above anything else, and I would agree that both of the above approaches certainly would have been capable of generating either sympathy, or investment cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2020 9:17:53 GMT -5
I just found a picture in my own files which might be of interest here. This photo is said to have been found in the Hauptmann family album and is called "John's birthday party." Isidor Fisch appears in the photo. One of the individuals resembles Hauptmann. Others appear to be Karl Henkel and Henry Uhlig, friends of Fisch. The photo is dated 1931. Not sure who "John" is though. One of the things that's happened to me over the years is that some of the things I used to know off the top of my head now require me to revisit or research again. When it comes to pictures, I've seen so many over time that I couldn't say without seeing them and even then I may not know or I'd have look into it to make sure. Both Fisch and Uhlig were friends with John Mohrdick so that's the first name that comes to mind as a possibility. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 9:18:23 GMT -5
As you point out in V2 – 568, Agent Frank seems to have drawn a reasonable connection between what is apparently a $15,000 credit towards Fisch from page 73 of Hauptmann’s account book and the $14,600 garage discovery. I’d venture it was Fisch’s role to seek out ways and means of disposing of potentially larger sums of the ransom money, specifically gold notes, which of course would have become increasingly difficult to get rid of by the time he departed for Germany in December 1933. I am not against the idea in the least that Fisch was involved with ransom money. How does what you say above show a link to laundered ransom money? No large sums of Lindbergh gold certificates turned up before Hauptmann's capture except around the end of April 1933 and the Faulkner deposit slip, May 1, 1933. How was ransom money being laundered in large sums and not leaving any trail? We would be looking at over $25,000 dollars in ransom money that would be involved. This seems incredible to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 9:26:40 GMT -5
A picture of Isidor Fisch with Mrs. Hauptmann and two other ladies was once posted on this board. There is a car in the background, probably Hauptmann's Dodge sedan with the driver inside who may well be Hauptmann himself. The two women were said to resemble Henry Ellerson's mother and sister. The women are all wearing furs of some kind, hats and stoles, and everyone is joining hands. Fisch and Mrs. Hauptmann are easily recognized. One woman has a map on her lap. No date is given--that would be interesting to know though and help to pinpoint the time of the Hauptmann/Fisch relationship. I think I know what picture you are talking about here. Could you post the board link to it? I need to be certain in order to reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2020 9:40:22 GMT -5
Silly question I suppose, but how do we know any of the ransom money was laundered? Not silly at all. Of course one could argue that spending the ransom was merely that. When I say "laundering" what I mean is there was an effort to get rid of "bad" or traceable money (ransom) in order to get "clean" money (non-traceable) in return - thru any method. I personally believe there were various "methods" used. This may indicate several people each using their own way of doing it, or one using many different ways. Tiny purchases at small shops is a popular position among many. Vegetable, and tobacco etc. I'm not sure if I've ever shared this or not but I have a personal theory about one such method. I happen to believe someone was taking a taxi to launder the money as well. Imagine someone was given 10 $5 ransom bills. They figure out, for example, how far they could go before the clock went past 40 cents. They would then tip whatever the average amount would be ... let's say 10 cents for arguments sake. That would leave them with $4.50 "clean" money. Nine more trips, each in a different taxi, would yield them $45 "good" money in exchange for $50 of "bad." On top of that, many people paid with $1s and change. That would mean anyone getting into the taxi paying with large bills would get these $5 in change. People paying with large bills would probably get $5s from countless sources and, once Lt. Finn or other LE interviewed them, they'd have no idea where a specific $5 came from. If there actually had been laundering done, why wasn't all of that money laundered and not just some of it? It's my position that multiple people were laundering money. Each probably had a certain method. Passing large amounts, it seems to me, would attract attention. Now, we see that the Gold recall led to the J. J. Faulkner exchange. I myself questioned why only $2980 was exchanged and not all the gold while they still had the chance. And yet, someone exchanged that amount which effectively laundered it. Furthermore, two previous exchanges, both $500 were made prior. Why did they only exchange $500 both times? Again, for me, both $500 exchanges show a system or pattern. Once Hauptmann was arrested, we see he's still in possession of a large amount of Gold Ransom bills. So if someone was willing to exchange $2980 why not more - or all?  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2020 10:00:20 GMT -5
My own position is that Hauptmann and Fisch were in cahoots with the laundering of ransom money. I too Michael, find it very difficult to believe they could not have been collaborating on this activity based on the nature of their business relationship, and given the high degree of likelihood that Hauptmann had the money from April 2, 1932, and probably had met Fisch before or about that time. As you point out in V2 – 568, Agent Frank seems to have drawn a reasonable connection between what is apparently a $15,000 credit towards Fisch from page 73 of Hauptmann’s account book and the $14,600 garage discovery. I’d venture it was Fisch’s role to seek out ways and means of disposing of potentially larger sums of the ransom money, specifically gold notes, which of course would have become increasingly difficult to get rid of by the time he departed for Germany in December 1933. Hauptmann would have then been entrusted to do what he could with the garage hoard until his partner’s return. I’m not sure if Fisch’s poverty act was entirely a ruse. I believe he was just someone who though his nature could take thrift to the extreme, yet he had no hesitation in flashing a wad of cash when he had it. Bottom line though, he loved money pretty much above anything else, and I would agree that both of the above approaches certainly would have been capable of generating either sympathy, or investment cash. Glad you noted this Joe because I've always found Frank's observation about this important. When it comes to Hauptmann, his accounts were "clean." Any money he deposited was not ransom. Authorities looked at his bank accounts, and stock transactions. Stock companies Steiner, and Pierce ... then the banks they made deposits in. All clean as a whistle. This means Hauptmann was making sure that only clean money was used. It almost supports the timing of his "discovery" right? But I am of the position he knew what he had. So this means it was intentional. So why did Hauptmann start spending money himself in the manner in which he did (leading to his arrest) which doesn't jibe with how he handled his accounts the whole entire time? For me it means something changed, and I've considered that once Fisch departed the country, one of his main sources for "cleaning" the money had dried up and he decided to try his hand at making small purchases, like his other Confederate(s) were still doing. Unfortunately for him - he wasn't as good at it. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2020 11:14:24 GMT -5
My own position is that Hauptmann and Fisch were in cahoots with the laundering of ransom money. I too Michael, find it very difficult to believe they could not have been collaborating on this activity based on the nature of their business relationship, and given the high degree of likelihood that Hauptmann had the money from April 2, 1932, and probably had met Fisch before or about that time. As you point out in V2 – 568, Agent Frank seems to have drawn a reasonable connection between what is apparently a $15,000 credit towards Fisch from page 73 of Hauptmann’s account book and the $14,600 garage discovery. I’d venture it was Fisch’s role to seek out ways and means of disposing of potentially larger sums of the ransom money, specifically gold notes, which of course would have become increasingly difficult to get rid of by the time he departed for Germany in December 1933. Hauptmann would have then been entrusted to do what he could with the garage hoard until his partner’s return. I’m not sure if Fisch’s poverty act was entirely a ruse. I believe he was just someone who though his nature could take thrift to the extreme, yet he had no hesitation in flashing a wad of cash when he had it. Bottom line though, he loved money pretty much above anything else, and I would agree that both of the above approaches certainly would have been capable of generating either sympathy, or investment cash. Glad you noted this Joe because I've always found Frank's observation about this important. When it comes to Hauptmann, his accounts were "clean." Any money he deposited was not ransom. Authorities looked at his bank accounts, and stock transactions. Stock companies Steiner, and Pierce ... then the banks they made deposits in. All clean as a whistle. This means Hauptmann was making sure that only clean money was used. It almost supports the timing of his "discovery" right? But I am of the position he knew what he had. So this means it was intentional. So why did Hauptmann start spending money himself in the manner in which he did (leading to his arrest) which doesn't jibe with how he handled his accounts the whole entire time? For me it means something changed, and I've considered that once Fisch departed the country, one of his main sources for "cleaning" the money had dried up and he decided to try his hand at making small purchases, like his other Confederate(s) were still doing. Unfortunately for him - he wasn't as good at it. I also believe Hauptmann knew exactly where the garage hoard came from. The wet closet shelf story is all wet for a number of reasons which predate the rainy August Sunday afternoon snake plant story. And let’s not forget that Hauptmann was personally enriched to the tune of approx. $40,000 (per Rab's detailed accounting calculations, and which includes the $14,600) from the time of the ransom payment until the day he was caught. Although I'm not saying there weren't others involved at one stage or other of the kidnapping/extortion scheme, his personal share certainly doesn’t leave much room for the enrichment of any accomplices, except perhaps Isidor Fisch. It was a fortunate, if not short-lived thing for Hauptmann that his business partner was dead by the time they asked him where he got the money. I'd also venture Hauptmann through his personal financial state, had become pretty desperate just before he was caught, and that he was probably fueled not only by the papers keeping quiet on recent ransom bill passings, but also by the pharmaceutical-grade ether found in his garage. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Jul 30, 2020 7:45:54 GMT -5
As you point out in V2 – 568, Agent Frank seems to have drawn a reasonable connection between what is apparently a $15,000 credit towards Fisch from page 73 of Hauptmann’s account book and the $14,600 garage discovery. I’d venture it was Fisch’s role to seek out ways and means of disposing of potentially larger sums of the ransom money, specifically gold notes, which of course would have become increasingly difficult to get rid of by the time he departed for Germany in December 1933. I am not against the idea in the least that Fisch was involved with ransom money. How does what you say above show a link to laundered ransom money? No large sums of Lindbergh gold certificates turned up before Hauptmann's capture except around the end of April 1933 and the Faulkner deposit slip, May 1, 1933. How was ransom money being laundered in large sums and not leaving any trail? We would be looking at over $25,000 dollars in ransom money that would be involved. This seems incredible to me. According to Agent Frank, between September 15, 1932 and February 26, 1934, and including $9,600 in miscellaneous deposits, Hauptmann deposited $27,162.50 cash into his Steiner Rouse and Central Savings Bank accounts. Documented cash expenditures between May 1932 and August 1934 totalled another $11,323.50. Add in the $14,600 garage hoard and you have approximately 86% of the $50,000 ransom payment. With no real and documented source of professional income for Hauptmann during this time period, the above is a pretty telling indicator of how Hauptmann was so effectively able to convert the hot money into cash for his living and luxury expenses, within a relatively confined area of New York City, and remain at large for two-and-a-half years. And who would have been in a better position to help him accomplish this other than a trusted business partner and bit player candidate like Isidor Fisch? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 8:11:16 GMT -5
So the options seem to be: Kidnapping & Extortion & Laundering Since option one covers everything, here are just a few responses to that option which places Fisch as involved on all counts: Kidnapping - Alfred Hammond's identifying Fisch as one of the occupants of an automobile seen in the Hopewell area before and including March 1, 1932. Extortion - Colonel Breckinridge says he was visited by a man he thought was Isidor Fisch in his office around March 8, 1932 claiming the "Lindberghs must deal with us" (statement used in ransom notes). This is just one example of Fisch's involvement in this area. Laundering - George Steinweg, who claimed Fisch used ransom money to buy passage and travelers checks in November 1933 for the upcoming trip to Germany. imgur.com/gnYc3Iqwww.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/steinweg.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 8:27:31 GMT -5
I am not against the idea in the least that Fisch was involved with ransom money. How does what you say above show a link to laundered ransom money? No large sums of Lindbergh gold certificates turned up before Hauptmann's capture except around the end of April 1933 and the Faulkner deposit slip, May 1, 1933. How was ransom money being laundered in large sums and not leaving any trail? We would be looking at over $25,000 dollars in ransom money that would be involved. This seems incredible to me. According to Agent Frank, between September 15, 1932 and February 26, 1934, and including $9,600 in miscellaneous deposits, Hauptmann deposited $27,162.50 cash into his Steiner Rouse and Central Savings Bank accounts. Documented cash expenditures between May 1932 and August 1934 totalled another $11,323.50. Add in the $14,600 garage hoard and you have approximately 86% of the $50,000 ransom payment. With no real and documented source of professional income for Hauptmann during this time period, the above is a pretty telling indicator of how Hauptmann was so effectively able to convert the hot money into cash for his living and luxury expenses, within a relatively confined area of New York City, and remain at large for two-and-a-half years. And who would have been in a better position to help him accomplish this other than a trusted business partner and bit player candidate like Isidor Fisch? Thanks for the detailed answer! I agree that the math works. My issue is why with all the money laundering that is going on so Hauptmann could put clean money into all the stock accounts, etc., that more ransom money had not been identified coming from the public sector. Even using small deposits and purchases for laundering ransom money, only a little over $5,000 was ever identified at the banks as ransom money and most of this money came at the end of April 1933 and May 1. 1933 with the Faulkner deposit. If thousands of dollars of ransom money is being laundered on a regular basis by one or more individuals, it is questionable how only such a small amount was ever recovered from the banks. Looking at your figures, I don't understand how so much money could pass through banks without more of it being caught if all the ransom money was traceable ransom bills. Over $25,000 dollars in ransom money according to your post went into Haupatmann's stock account. Clean money, which means that amount must have been laundered already, right? Why doesn't at least a percentage of the $25,000 + ever get discovered? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2020 9:17:49 GMT -5
I do not believe anyone can read Chapter 7 in V2 then fully rely on Frank’s accounting here. He offers “disclaimers” himself in the report. Unknowns are made up by drawing conclusions based upon “expected” scenario. Just the $5 he sent his niece, for example, disproves he was broke at that time once considering he had no job and those who did were lucky to make $50-$80 per month. And yet Frank concluded he was broke and in desperate need of funds. So im not going to re-write this chapter here. There’s other things too .... like the serials of the two $500 dollar bills on the back of the door as an example. Seems to prove possession of them and yet they aren’t mentioned in any forensic accounting report. And once again I have to argue they were not the proceeds of ransom laundering for obvious reasons. As we see in V3 authorities, despite the testimony, were convinced a large amount of ransom still existed after Hauptmann’s conviction and wanted to know where it was. But certainly when it did come to the ransom there were multiple people involved in the “process” if one looks at all there is to look at. It’s my belief that both Fisch and Mueller we’re involved in this process but not necessarily the only ones. |
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 30, 2020 9:28:08 GMT -5
Amy, I'm thinking that a lot of the money that was passed just remained in circulation and never made it to a bank. Many people probably distrusted banks during the depression and kept money that they may otherwise have deposited in a bank account. Either that or it's buried in Summit, NJ somewhere!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2020 11:21:04 GMT -5
Amy, I'm thinking that a lot of the money that was passed just remained in circulation and never made it to a bank. Many people probably distrusted banks during the depression and kept money that they may otherwise have deposited in a bank account. Either that or it's buried in Summit, NJ somewhere! I totally agree that some of it never made it to the bank for various reasons, some of which you suggest. Still, the amount of clean money that went into Hauptmann's stock account(s) required quite a bit of laundering of ransom money to make those deposits plus other spending by Hauptmann that was going on. I think it is hard to explain away why more of it didn't turn up in the banks. There was checking going on even if it wasn't being done consistently by every single bank teller in New York City. You could be right about Summit, NJ if the Mersman table writing was legitimately written by someone who was involved with the crime; or maybe it could be buried somewhere else; or maybe some of it was purposely destroyed to avoid leaving a trail?? |
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 30, 2020 11:51:30 GMT -5
Hmm, I never thought about it being destroyed. Michael how much continued to be found after Hauptmann's arrest?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 30, 2020 12:01:22 GMT -5
Thank you for the question. I am not technically the best but did find the photo referred to. it was posted by a guest on
the Condon Conundrum Board on May 8 of 2019. it can be found at imgur.com/GQKAww.
The man is front is clearly Isidor Fisch--it would be hard to mistake him. Anna Hauptmann is also easy to identify.
The other two women may have been Ellerson's mother and sister, or so it is suggested. All women have furs and
stoles and wear coats so apparently the photo was taken in fall or perhaps an early spring. The older woman hold what
appears to be a map in her lap. The man in the car is not identified although,
since Anna is in the picture, one might attempt identification through the type of car shown in the background. I was asking
if anyone knew the date of the photo since it might help to pinpoint the time of the Hauptmann/Fisch relationship
which was the subject of discussion on the thread. I can try to find the photo of "John's Birthday Party" online if
there is any interest. That photo is dated 1931 and shows both Fisch and (I think) Hauptmann at the birthday party.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 30, 2020 12:20:34 GMT -5
OK, I did find the picture of the "birthday party" on line. It's on the google and it can be found if you type in
Hauptmann Family Album "John's Birthday Party" It's dated March 1931, so that was the reason i thought the
photo would be of interest. Fisch, Uhlig, and Hauptmann are easy to identify, so if the inscription is correct,
then the two knew each other by the date. Henkel appears to be sitting in front. He has his head thrown back.
The photo was said to be taken in Brooklyn, New York. Perhaps "John" lived there?
|
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 30, 2020 13:25:33 GMT -5
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jul 30, 2020 14:55:51 GMT -5
The above is not the photo that I was referring to in my earlier post. These photos are of a New Year's party hosted by
Hauptmann at his home at the beginning of 1933, nine months after the kidnapping. The birthday party I was referring to
is dated March 31, 1931 and is another party at a different place. This date is nearly a year prior to the kidnapping and
shows both Hauptmann and Fisch in the same photo, indicating that there relationship began about a year before the
kidnapping actually occurred.If you go to the internet on the Google, type in Hauptmann Family Album "John's Birthday
Party" then you will see the photo intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 30, 2020 15:18:12 GMT -5
That's what I typed in and this is what came up. This and a lot of photos of John and Yoko! I'll try again. If not, does it let you cut and paste?
|
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 30, 2020 15:40:34 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2020 7:51:14 GMT -5
I do not believe anyone can read Chapter 7 in V2 then fully rely on Frank’s accounting here. He offers “disclaimers” himself in the report. Unknowns are made up by drawing conclusions based upon “expected” scenario. Just the $5 he sent his niece, for example, disproves he was broke at that time once considering he had no job and those who did were lucky to make $50-$80 per month. And yet Frank concluded he was broke and in desperate need of funds. So im not going to re-write this chapter here. There’s other things too .... like the serials of the two $500 dollar bills on the back of the door as an example. Seems to prove possession of them and yet they aren’t mentioned in any forensic accounting report. And once again I have to argue they were not the proceeds of ransom laundering for obvious reasons. As we see in V3 authorities, despite the testimony, were convinced a large amount of ransom still existed after Hauptmann’s conviction and wanted to know where it was. But certainly when it did come to the ransom there were multiple people involved in the “process” if one looks at all there is to look at. It’s my belief that both Fisch and Mueller we’re involved in this process but not necessarily the only ones. I don't believe Frank got it all right, just as Schoenfeld, Walsh, Koehler and many others didn't, but he had a pretty well rounded picture of Hauptmann's financial balance sheet. I recall Rab came up with a figure in the neighbourhood of $41,000 of unexplained Hauptmann family enrichment between March 1, 1932 and September 19, 1934. How far out does that really make Frank, give or take even 10% on both of these calculations? Anyway you slice it, there’s not much room for any other players after Hauptmann clearly accounts personally for the lion’s share. Regarding his financial state just before the kidnapping, he could well have had enough in personal savings to get by and with Anna working, they certainly weren't starving. But he obviously had more grandiose plans than working for a living in the months leading up to March 1, 1932. And yes, anyone making $50-$80 per month would have been fortunate, including Hauptmann who was making $80 per month when he suddenly quit the Majestic right after the ransom was paid. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Jul 31, 2020 13:05:11 GMT -5
That's what I typed in and this is what came up. This and a lot of photos of John and Yoko! I'll try again. If not, does it let you cut and paste? Unfortunately, the photo is mislabeled. The man in the front row on the left is not Hauptmann, as anyone can see. Hauptmann and Fisch met for the first time in the Henkels' furnished room in late July or early August 1932. Not a single person had ever seen them together before that date. And Fisch didn't move into the Henkels' rooming house until May 1932. Anna Hauptmann even stated that she heard of and met Fisch for the first time after her return from Germany. Many will believe Hauptmann's erroneous claim of an earlier meeting, while there isn't a shred of evidence out there to support it. Before their mutual introduction by Karl and Gerta Henkel, Hauptmann and Fisch had moved in different circles, not in interlocking ones. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2020 18:38:47 GMT -5
According to Agent Frank, between September 15, 1932 and February 26, 1934, and including $9,600 in miscellaneous deposits, Hauptmann deposited $27,162.50 cash into his Steiner Rouse and Central Savings Bank accounts. Documented cash expenditures between May 1932 and August 1934 totalled another $11,323.50. Add in the $14,600 garage hoard and you have approximately 86% of the $50,000 ransom payment. With no real and documented source of professional income for Hauptmann during this time period, the above is a pretty telling indicator of how Hauptmann was so effectively able to convert the hot money into cash for his living and luxury expenses, within a relatively confined area of New York City, and remain at large for two-and-a-half years. And who would have been in a better position to help him accomplish this other than a trusted business partner and bit player candidate like Isidor Fisch? Thanks for the detailed answer! I agree that the math works. My issue is why with all the money laundering that is going on so Hauptmann could put clean money into all the stock accounts, etc., that more ransom money had not been identified coming from the public sector. Even using small deposits and purchases for laundering ransom money, only a little over $5,000 was ever identified at the banks as ransom money and most of this money came at the end of April 1933 and May 1. 1933 with the Faulkner deposit. If thousands of dollars of ransom money is being laundered on a regular basis by one or more individuals, it is questionable how only such a small amount was ever recovered from the banks. Looking at your figures, I don't understand how so much money could pass through banks without more of it being caught if all the ransom money was traceable ransom bills. Over $25,000 dollars in ransom money according to your post went into Haupatmann's stock account. Clean money, which means that amount must have been laundered already, right? Why doesn't at least a percentage of the $25,000 + ever get discovered? Amy, I once knew the amount of money that was exchanged in one day in NYC during the ransom bill passing period, and I'm sure there is a current source that can identify this figure. Even considering this was Depression America, that figure was simply staggering in its enormity. As a result, it's never surprised me that only $5200 or so in ransom money was ever discovered through the banks and business establishments over the course of two-and-a-half years. And the fact that everyone would have been on higher alert for gold notes as May 1, 1933 approached, coupled with primarily non-gold notes having been passed earlier on, tends to invalidate any statistical representation as to how ransom bills were passed over this time period. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 19:14:24 GMT -5
The birthday party I was referring to is dated March 31, 1931 and is another party at a different place. This date is nearly a year prior to the kidnapping and shows both Hauptmann and Fisch in the same photo, indicating that there relationship began about a year before the kidnapping actually occurred.If you go to the internet on the Google, type in Hauptmann Family Album "John's Birthday Party" then you will see the photo intended. metje, is this the photo you are referring to:  If so, Hauptmann is not in that picture. As Mbg said in that post, the man who was identified as Hauptmann in the picture is not Hauptmann. In my opinion, I think the mislabeled man may be Karl Henkel. In the top row on the left we see Henry Uhlig with his arm around Isidor Fisch. I do not know the identities of the other men in the photo. Perhaps one of them could be named John, who knows. In the statements given to the authorities by Karl and Gerta Henkel, they claimed they did not meet Hauptmann until July of 1932. They said that they introduced Hauptmann to Isidor Fisch in either July or August 1932. Hauptmann claimed under cross examination by Wilentz in his Flemington Court testimony that he met Fisch either in March or April 1932 after the kidnapping happened. Gerta Henkel knew Fisch in Leipzig before she ever came to America. Karl Henkel met Fisch when he (Karl) came to America in 1926. |
|
