Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2020 19:51:54 GMT -5
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. I appreciate your thoughts on this, Joe. I still find it to be amazing that so much ransom money laundering could have been going on without some additional money getting caught in the checking process. I do realize that the serial number list was huge in size and at first would have proved to be a hindrance for bank tellers to use. They did come up with a quicker way to check for the serial numbers and that might have aided in finding some. Like I mentioned before, it you take out the Faulkner deposit and the other two $500 deposits, just a little over a thousand dollars was identified by banks. This just doesn't make sense to me. I guess this will remain one of those Lindbergh case mysteries for me! |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 1, 2020 3:55:21 GMT -5
Yes, this is the photo I referred to. Thanks much, Amy. Karl Henkel appears to be the man in the front with his
head thrown back. I wrote to Robert Zorn to ask him if John Knoll or his brother happened to be in this picture,
thinking that Knoll might be the "John" referred to in the note accompanying the picture. Mr. Zorn kindly replied
and said neither Knoll nor his brother appears in the photo. If the photo is dated March of 1931 and Hauptmann
is not in the picture, then why would it appear in the Hauptmann family album?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2020 7:51:53 GMT -5
If the photo is dated March of 1931 and Hauptmann is not in the picture, then why would it appear in the Hauptmann family album? Hi metje. I have wondered why the newspapers were saying some of the Fisch photos they were printing in papers came from the Hauptmann Family album. If that were true, there is no way Anna Hauptmann could not have known who Isidor Fisch was prior to 1932 when she claims to have met him. Just speculating here, could these pictures have been part of the materials Fisch left with Hauptmann before his went to Germany in 1933? Hauptmann had put Fisch's belongings into his garage. After Hauptmann was contacted by Pincus Fisch about Isidor's death, Hauptmann brought the garage items into the apartment and went through them. Hauptmann might have retained the photos in his apartment which may account for why they were labeled as Hauptman's pictures. Just to add more mystery to these photos, here is another Isidor Fisch photo that appeared in the newspapers. This one appeared in a January 18, 1935 newspaper during the time of the Flemington Trial. The caption says it was from the Hauptmann family album. The photo was dated 1929! I have always wondered if the New York Police were the ones who provided these Fisch pictures to reporters for their stories on Hauptmann. imgur.com/OhhpjsV |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 1, 2020 10:41:54 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. You are right, Amy. The photo had to have come from the papers left by Fisch with Hauptmann for safekeeping. The handwriting in the photo is unmistakably Isidor's, and the date an location (March '31, Brooklyn) shed light on John the Birthday Boy: He was John (Johann) Mohrdieck, one of Isidor's best friends, born March 12, 1906, in Germany, and living at 1419 Bushwick Ave., Brooklyn, according to the 1930 census. John had even signed Isidor's Petition for Citizenship as a witness back in 1926, citing the same address. None of Isidor's many other friends were named John. The Hauptmanns never lived in Brooklyn. My guess is that one of the other men in the photo is Lawrence Pefferly (formerly Lorenz Pfefferle), whose wife Hermine also signed Isidor's petition. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2020 10:59:46 GMT -5
Hmm, I never thought about it being destroyed. Michael how much continued to be found after Hauptmann's arrest? Waayyy behind on the discussions... I wish it was as simple of giving you a number Norma. The "official" count was $445.00 although research reveals a few in the bunch had actually been discovered prior to his arrest. Also, of the $445.00 recovered and forwarded to the Treasury, a twenty and two fives were found to not be part of the ransom. I say "official" because as time wore on there was less and less interest in both looking and investigating. Some possibilities were impossible to either prove or disprove. I tried to explain this situation on pages 606-23 of V3 as best I could. I've also added something new to Chapter 1 in V4. |
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 1, 2020 11:46:25 GMT -5
As long as we are "remembering Isidor Fisch" in this thread, I can't help but raise the subject of the mysterious man who just walked into Henry Breckinridge's law office TWICE during the week immediately following the purported kidnapping, as described in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies" (paperback), p.408. Following Hauptmann's arrest and the appearance of photos of the late Fisch in the newspapers, Breckinridge wrote a memorandum describing this visitor from two and a half years previously, strongly suggesting that he was Fisch. The visitor referred to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, showing "considerable mental and emotional excitement," and (eerily, in retrospect) told Breckinridge the the needs of science must be served above human life. (One interpretation of that line would be that he knew the baby was already dead and his body would be used for scientific research.) Yet Breckinridge kept these incidents from authorities until after Fisch was dead and Hauptmann was apprehended.
Just asking for comments here: was the mysterious visitor indeed Fisch? And if you think it was indeed Fisch, does the fact that he visited Breckinridge strongly indicate that he was looking at that point to extort some ransom money out of Lindbergh? If not, why else on earth would he visit Breckinridge? Without any interest in the ransom payment, would it make any sense for Fisch to visit Breckinridge at the time?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 1, 2020 11:54:30 GMT -5
Hauptmann may not be included in the photo "John's Birthday Party" though one guest does resemble him in part.
(Second row at the left.) This individual does resemble Henry Ellerson. Ellerson and Fisch were said to have
been seen together at a restaurant in New Rochelle for several months in the winter of 1931-32, so perhaps
their relationship began earlier in 1931.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Aug 1, 2020 22:44:07 GMT -5
As long as we are "remembering Isidor Fisch" in this thread, I can't help but raise the subject of the mysterious man who just walked into Henry Breckinridge's law office TWICE during the week immediately following the purported kidnapping, as described in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies" (paperback), p.408. Following Hauptmann's arrest and the appearance of photos of the late Fisch in the newspapers, Breckinridge wrote a memorandum describing this visitor from two and a half years previously, strongly suggesting that he was Fisch. The visitor referred to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, showing "considerable mental and emotional excitement," and (eerily, in retrospect) told Breckinridge the the needs of science must be served above human life. (One interpretation of that line would be that he knew the baby was already dead and his body would be used for scientific research.) Yet Breckinridge kept these incidents from authorities until after Fisch was dead and Hauptmann was apprehended. Just asking for comments here: was the mysterious visitor indeed Fisch? And if you think it was indeed Fisch, does the fact that he visited Breckinridge strongly indicate that he was looking at that point to extort some ransom money out of Lindbergh? If not, why else on earth would he visit Breckinridge? Without any interest in the ransom payment, would it make any sense for Fisch to visit Breckinridge at the time? Fisch never wore glasses and he wasn't mentally unstable. Too bad a savvy lawyer like Breckinridge never thought of asking this oddball to explain his views in more detail. They likely weren't the preoccupation of an unfortunate tubercular fur cutter. |
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 2, 2020 6:57:44 GMT -5
As long as we are "remembering Isidor Fisch" in this thread, I can't help but raise the subject of the mysterious man who just walked into Henry Breckinridge's law office TWICE during the week immediately following the purported kidnapping, as described in Lloyd Gardner's "The Case That Never Dies" (paperback), p.408. Following Hauptmann's arrest and the appearance of photos of the late Fisch in the newspapers, Breckinridge wrote a memorandum describing this visitor from two and a half years previously, strongly suggesting that he was Fisch. The visitor referred to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, showing "considerable mental and emotional excitement," and (eerily, in retrospect) told Breckinridge the the needs of science must be served above human life. (One interpretation of that line would be that he knew the baby was already dead and his body would be used for scientific research.) Yet Breckinridge kept these incidents from authorities until after Fisch was dead and Hauptmann was apprehended. Just asking for comments here: was the mysterious visitor indeed Fisch? And if you think it was indeed Fisch, does the fact that he visited Breckinridge strongly indicate that he was looking at that point to extort some ransom money out of Lindbergh? If not, why else on earth would he visit Breckinridge? Without any interest in the ransom payment, would it make any sense for Fisch to visit Breckinridge at the time? Fisch never wore glasses and he wasn't mentally unstable. Too bad a savvy lawyer like Breckinridge never thought of asking this oddball to explain his views in more detail. They likely weren't the preoccupation of an unfortunate tubercular fur cutter. Just wondering why Gardner would bring this incident up at all toward the end of his book, if he didn't think that the visitor could have well been Fisch. As for the glasses, could visitor have been using a bit of a disguise? After all, he wasn't involving himself in routine business. And as for the perceived mental instability, perhaps very unusual circumstances, like for a person not ordinarily familiar with serious crime, might have caused a usually calm person to act in an unusual manner. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Aug 2, 2020 8:41:37 GMT -5
It's my belief that the individual who visited Henry Breckinridge's office, was probably sent by one of the newspapers to further explore the very theory that CALjr was kidnapped at the behest of his father. The notion had certainly been raised by the tabloids and made public by that time. For someone directly involved in the kidnapping and extortion to have boldly walked right into the office of Lindbergh's own lawyer would have been a very foolhardy move totally out-of-step with the current negotiations, and one that could have potentially brought the whole scheme crashing to the ground. The appearances of a needle salesman and knife grinder at Condon's house during the ransom negotiations, both of whom seem to have targeted his address only, also suggest these individuals were hired along the same lines.. to get information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 9:33:32 GMT -5
Fisch never wore glasses and he wasn't mentally unstable. Too bad a savvy lawyer like Breckinridge never thought of asking this oddball to explain his views in more detail. They likely weren't the preoccupation of an unfortunate tubercular fur cutter. Just wondering why Gardner would bring this incident up at all toward the end of his book, if he didn't think that the visitor could have well been Fisch. As for the glasses, could visitor have been using a bit of a disguise? After all, he wasn't involving himself in routine business. And as for the perceived mental instability, perhaps very unusual circumstances, like for a person not ordinarily familiar with serious crime, might have caused a usually calm person to act in an unusual manner. I think this is significant and that is why Gardner included it in his book. Breckinridge made this identification and that is what makes it important. The man looked like Isidor Fisch with glasses on. I don't believe there was mental instability causing this man's behavior. Fisch had TB and was not consistent with doctoring for it. It is very possible he was self-medicating, probably even using ether at times to control his coughing. I don't see Breck being fooled by reporters very easily. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Aug 2, 2020 10:49:21 GMT -5
Just wondering why Gardner would bring this incident up at all toward the end of his book, if he didn't think that the visitor could have well been Fisch. As for the glasses, could visitor have been using a bit of a disguise? After all, he wasn't involving himself in routine business. And as for the perceived mental instability, perhaps very unusual circumstances, like for a person not ordinarily familiar with serious crime, might have caused a usually calm person to act in an unusual manner. I think this is significant and that is why Gardner included it in his book. Breckinridge made this identification and that is what makes it important. The man looked like Isidor Fisch with glasses on. I don't believe there was mental instability causing this man's behavior. Fisch had TB and was not consistent with doctoring for it. It is very possible he was self-medicating, probably even using ether at times to control his coughing. I don't see Breck being fooled by reporters very easily. Amy, I'm not clear if you believe this individual might have been Isidor Fisch or not, but if so do you have any further evidence of Fisch and Hauptmann having known each other at or before this time? Also, do you believe someone who had intimate knowledge of the kidnapping itself, (assuming this person did) would have walked into Breckinridge's office in broad daylight during ransom negotiations, thereby exposing his identity while putting himself at great risk of being captured? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 20:40:40 GMT -5
Amy, I'm not clear if you believe this individual might have been Isidor Fisch or not, but if so do you have any further evidence of Fisch and Hauptmann having known each other at or before this time? Yes, I believe I do have such evidence. It is the kidnap ladder itself. If you believe Hauptmann made that ladder then he must have know Fisch prior to the kidnapping. That ladder had only two types of soil on it. The newest soil was from the dirt found in the nursery window area of the Lindbergh house. There was also only one other, older, soil present on the kidnap ladder that was not New Jersey soil. That soil matched closest to the soil from the area where Isidor Fisch lived prior to and at the time of the kidnapping which was East 157th Street, Bronx, NY. The kidnap ladder was in this area before it ever arrived at the Lindbergh home in Hopewell. If you wish to dispute this, I suggest you do so with the person who wrote the soil report. Yes I do believe that. Lindbergh had promised the kidnappers no harm would come to them. That is why Fisch (or whoever you think this person was) had no qualms about coming straight to Breckinridge's office to speak to him. The fact that Breckinridge did not go to the authorities about this person shows how seriously he took the visit. Breck would have gone to Lindbergh and only Lindbergh first about this visit. As Michael says in TDC Volume II, Chapter 10, page 564, I quote, "Shortly after this man's last visit, Condon became intermediary and Breckinridge never saw him again." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2020 20:53:27 GMT -5
My guess is that one of the other men in the photo is Lawrence Pefferly (formerly Lorenz Pfefferle), whose wife Hermine also signed Isidor's petition. That is interesting. I am aware that Lawrence and Hermina Pefferly knew Fisch for quite a while. I found this picture at the NJSP archives of Henry Uhlig (the Pefferlys knew him also) and Isidor Fisch posing with a nice couple. Fisch looks younger and healthy in this picture so I am wondering if this couple might be the Pefferlys. Would you happen to know if they are or not? imgur.com/6iBBz3z |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 3, 2020 6:55:17 GMT -5
My guess is that one of the other men in the photo is Lawrence Pefferly (formerly Lorenz Pfefferle), whose wife Hermine also signed Isidor's petition. That is interesting. I am aware that Lawrence and Hermina Pefferly knew Fisch for quite a while. I found this picture at the NJSP archives of Henry Uhlig (the Pefferlys knew him also) and Isidor Fisch posing with a nice couple. Fisch looks younger and healthy in this picture so I am wondering if this couple might be the Pefferlys. Would you happen to know if they are or not? imgur.com/6iBBz3zYes, Amy, that must be the couple. Lawrence Pefferly was a plasterer/stucco worker. They wear white coats or suits when working. He's the one in the front on the right in the birthday celebration photo. The person next to Fisch in the middle is John Mohrdieck. The Pefferlys must have divorced at some point, as he and a wife Anne welcomed a child in 1938 (unless Hermine changed her name, which I doubt). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 7:42:33 GMT -5
Yes, Amy, that must be the couple. Lawrence Pefferly was a plasterer/stucco worker. They wear white coats or suits when working. He's the one in the front on the right in the birthday celebration photo. The person next to Fisch in the middle is John Mohrdieck. The Pefferlys must have divorced at some point, as he and a wife Anne welcomed a child in 1938 (unless Hermine changed her name, which I doubt). Thank you for your help! I suspected that might be the Pefferlys because of the white lab coat the gentlemen was wearing so I thought I would ask your opinion, which I am glad I did.  Yes, Lawrence and Hermine apparently divorced at some point. They are living separately according to the 1938 Washington D.C. City directory. Lawrence married Ann Weikinger with whom he had at least two children that I know about - a son Lawrence Roland (b. September 16, 1939) and a daughter Maria Faith. Lawrence (Lorenz) and Hermine moved to D.C. and Lawrence worked as a sculptor of religious works for the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Lawrence passed away in July 1955. Here is the Find-a-Grave link (for son Lawrence Roland) where I learned some helpful information about Lawrence Pefferly for anyone who is interested: www.findagrave.com/memorial/158353618 |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2020 8:15:15 GMT -5
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. My point is that the books only reveal what's in them. What the Prosecution didn't like, like his partnership with Fisch, was then suggested those ledgers were falsified - see how that works? So one cannot have it both ways - or they can - but it always seems to fall on the side they "like." By the way, Hauptmann quit the Majestic at noon on April 2nd - so it was before the payoff. Strange. I mean CJ was supposedly expecting to be paid at Woodlawn and yet, if Hauptmann was involved in the extortion plot, he is so SURE of the payoff that he quits before its even collected at St. Raymonds. I wonder how he knew? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2020 8:58:12 GMT -5
Amy, I'm not clear if you believe this individual might have been Isidor Fisch or not, but if so do you have any further evidence of Fisch and Hauptmann having known each other at or before this time? There's also the FBI memos that claimed Hauptmann said he was given the two $500 by Fisch. Apparently, Hauptmann made statements that this occurred prior to 1932. So once confronted with the fact that he had also claimed he didn't know Fisch prior to 1932, Hauptmann was supposed to have responded: " Well, now I'm in the bag" or something similar. I'll admit there's a lot of ways to dissect this and it may not mean what it implies for multiple reasons, but I will say the police believed it was significant at the time. However, ignoring it isn't something I agree with so it must be examined - if disregarded then with explanation. Yes I do believe that. Lindbergh had promised the kidnappers no harm would come to them. That is why Fisch (or whoever you think this person was) had no qualms about coming straight to Breckinridge's office to speak to him. The fact that Breckinridge did not go to the authorities about this person shows how seriously he took the visit. Breck would have gone to Lindbergh and only Lindbergh first about this visit. As Michael says in TDC Volume II, Chapter 10, page 564, I quote, "Shortly after this man's last visit, Condon became intermediary and Breckinridge never saw him again." The thing about Fisch was (what I'd call) a unique appearance. He's got that type of face that's hard to confuse with someone else. That's not to say that someone who got a fleeting glimpse might not confuse him for someone else OR that they aren't reliable to start with. In this case Breckinridge didn't just "see" him. He sat down with him. He ate food with the guy. And met with him more than once. So his account demands consideration. As to the glasses, "Guest" is absolutely right. Fisch never wore them. This feature proves to me that Breckinridge is giving an honest account. Had he wanted to implicate Fisch definitely he would not have mentioned them. As for a "disguise" I cannot agree. Heck, even Fletch used novelty teeth and a set of fake sideburns. Those glasses would have done nothing to conceal how Fisch appeared. The perception of this man being crazed or whatever could be attributable to several things. One being it has to do with a ransom concerning the most famous child in the world who was now laying dead somewhere. Not everyone is Ted Bundy, so it seems appropriate to me under the circumstances. Amy's point too should not go unnoticed. If this man was a "fake" then it seems he wouldn't disappear once Condon was employed so the timing of everything is important here. That includes the notes and what was said in them. In the end, I am not sure what to make of it. The thing I want to say is that there is no "deadline" to making a choice about it. It doesn't have to be that one agrees it WAS him or that it was NOT. While I consider it might have been him I'd never say it definitely was. Right? So for me its one of those things I add to the pile hoping something else might come to light that either compliments or eliminates it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 10:14:23 GMT -5
Yes I do believe that. Lindbergh had promised the kidnappers no harm would come to them. That is why Fisch (or whoever you think this person was) had no qualms about coming straight to Breckinridge's office to speak to him. The fact that Breckinridge did not go to the authorities about this person shows how seriously he took the visit. Breck would have gone to Lindbergh and only Lindbergh first about this visit. As Michael says in TDC Volume II, Chapter 10, page 564, I quote, "Shortly after this man's last visit, Condon became intermediary and Breckinridge never saw him again." In the end, I am not sure what to make of it. The thing I want to say is that there is no "deadline" to making a choice about it. It doesn't have to be that one agrees it WAS him or that it was NOT. While I consider it might have been him I'd never say it definitely was. Right? So for me its one of those things I add to the pile hoping something else might come to light that either compliments or eliminates it. I think I need to clarify something here. In the quote above that you used, the first sentence I wrote-"Yes, I do believe that." is meant that I think Fisch or any other person who that might have been would have had that boldness to come into Breck's office to see him because there was that promise of protection and Breckinridge would have honored that just like CAL. It is Breckinridge who makes the connection that Fisch looks like the man who came to see him. He recognizes Fisch's face, even without the glasses. I believe this has real value to the identity of who came into that office and sat with Breck and lunched with him. I do place high regard upon this identification. That is my own personal choice. However, others are free to make their own choice concerning the value of Breck's statement as shared in your book. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 3, 2020 11:55:53 GMT -5
Yes, Amy, that must be the couple. Lawrence Pefferly was a plasterer/stucco worker. They wear white coats or suits when working. He's the one in the front on the right in the birthday celebration photo. The person next to Fisch in the middle is John Mohrdieck. The Pefferlys must have divorced at some point, as he and a wife Anne welcomed a child in 1938 (unless Hermine changed her name, which I doubt). Thank you for your help! I suspected that might be the Pefferlys because of the white lab coat the gentlemen was wearing so I thought I would ask your opinion, which I am glad I did. Yes, Lawrence and Hermine apparently divorced at some point. They are living separately according to the 1938 Washington D.C. City directory. Lawrence married Ann Weikinger with whom he had at least two children that I know about - a son Lawrence Roland (b. September 16, 1939) and a daughter Maria Faith. Lawrence (Lorenz) and Hermine moved to D.C. and Lawrence worked as a sculptor of religious works for the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Lawrence passed away in July 1955. Here is the Find-a-Grave link (for son Lawrence Roland) where I learned some helpful information about Lawrence Pefferly for anyone who is interested: www.findagrave.com/memorial/158353618Thank you for all the additional info on the Pefferlys, Amy! |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 3, 2020 14:13:55 GMT -5
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. My point is that the books only reveal what's in them. What the Prosecution didn't like, like his partnership with Fisch, was then suggested those ledgers were falsified - see how that works? So one cannot have it both ways - or they can - but it always seems to fall on the side they "like." By the way, Hauptmann quit the Majestic at noon on April 2nd - so it was before the payoff. Strange. I mean CJ was supposedly expecting to be paid at Woodlawn and yet, if Hauptmann was involved in the extortion plot, he is so SURE of the payoff that he quits before its even collected at St. Raymonds. I wonder how he knew? If Hauptmann quit at noon, why did they pay him for two full days in April? They could have docked him half a day. He was paid $100/month (contrary to the $80 he claimed). $100/30 days = $3.33/day. In March he worked from 3/21 - 3/31 = 11 days x 3.33 = $36.67 (amount on the check he received and signed). The amount on his signed April check was $6.67 (2 x $3.33). I'm sure you have reliable sources for this earlier quitting time, Michael. Just wondering why the Majestic was so generous in its pay policy. All in all, it was a very good payday for Hauptmann. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 4, 2020 10:18:30 GMT -5
A photo of Lawrence Pefferly appears on the Google internet. Type in WPA Artists of the Washington D.C.
Then scroll down to the second photo which identifies Lawrence Pefferly working on the statue of an angel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2020 12:57:33 GMT -5
If Hauptmann quit at noon, why did they pay him for two full days in April? They could have docked him half a day. He was paid $100/month (contrary to the $80 he claimed). $100/30 days = $3.33/day. In March he worked from 3/21 - 3/31 = 11 days x 3.33 = $36.67 (amount on the check he received and signed). The amount on his signed April check was $6.67 (2 x $3.33). I'm sure you have reliable sources for this earlier quitting time, Michael. Just wondering why the Majestic was so generous in its pay policy. All in all, it was a very good payday for Hauptmann. He was overpaid. Like everyone else who read Scaduto, I wanted to know what happened here. I’d have to write a chapter to completely explain it all but my research into this is second only to Rail 16 although the situation just as crazy. As early as 9/20, Knapp told Agent Seykora that Hauptmann resigned on April 2nd. And yet, the time book indicates April 4th the condition of which, among other things, is what gave rise to the tampering allegations. I also have a chain of custody form signed by Lt. Dinneen indicating possession of an employment card showing that Hauptmann resigned on April 2nd - yet, the copies of the cards at the archives have no such notation. When Hauptmann’s coworkers were interviewed some remembered when he quit because it was at noon and there was discussion about how unusual it was. In short, the records were a mess. Erasures, writeovers, and typeovers on the payroll and ink blobs and writeovers on the time sheets. As it related to Hauptmann, this might have had something to do with the odd start date and when he quit - in addition to the fact that Morton did not become the “official” timekeeper until April and was transitioning into that position from a deputy painter. But there were similar issues in other places too - to include the cancellation of 120 checks for the March 31 payroll. I also discovered new documents referred to as “complaint sheets” which were really “updates” that were made and attached to the existing payrolls. These were created to correct things in some cases after the original payroll had already been typed up. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 4, 2020 15:26:57 GMT -5
Sorry, to find the photo of Lawrence Pefferly on-line on the Google, type in Lawrence Pefferly/WPA Artists in Washington DC
The second photo appearing is that of Pefferly with the statue of an angel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2020 17:46:27 GMT -5
Thank you for doing this research! I believe this is the picture you are talking about. imgur.com/HjwFO38I found this particular picture on this blog: https://nddaily..com/2017/08/wpa-artists-of-washington-dc.html |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 5, 2020 8:38:07 GMT -5
Yes. That is the photo I was referring to. Thank you for you help with this, Amy.
Here is some information regarding John Mohrdieck. He attended "John's Birthday Party," which probably was
intended for himself, and he is also present at Hauptmann's New Year's party (Jan. 1 1933) sitting in the back row
on the right hand side. He was said to be a close friend of Isidor Fisch.
According to the New York Daily News which was published on Dec. 28, 1935, The Court of Pardons was about
to set a date for a hearing on Hauptmann's plea for clemency. Gov. Hoffman stated that his attitude was still
"one of inquiry into various phases of the case." Reference is then made to a report that Hauptmann's story
to the Court of Pardons "will accuse Isidor Fisch and John Mohrdieck of the Lindbergh kidnapping and
extortion." John Mohrdieck was questioned, according to the Daily News, soon after Hauptmann's arrest
but was not detained. Gov. Hoffman stated that Mohrdieck's name was mentioned to him by investigators
but at that time (1935), he did not know where Mohrdieck was or if he had any importance in the case.
John Mohrdieck was born March 12, 1906, and died in April 1968. According to his Declaration of Intention
(Certificate of 1924), he moved to the U.S. from Hamburg, Germany. His petition for citizenship states that
he was 23 years old at that time and lived at 1419 Bushwick Ave. in Brooklyn. Date of petition was
August 6, 1929.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 5, 2020 8:46:37 GMT -5
I was wondering if anyone has some good photos of John Mohrdieck. The two that I mentioned taken at the two
parties suggest that there might be some resemblances of Mohrdieck to Hauptmann, enough to confuse John Condon in
trying to identify Cemetery John.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 5, 2020 9:54:11 GMT -5
One more question: The signature of John Mohrdieck does in some respects suggests a possible resemblance to
the handwriting found on the table in Plainfield N.J. Not much of a sample, admittedly, but does anyone know if
Mohrdieck's handwriting was ever compared with that found on the table? In the photo taken at Hauptmann's New Year's
party Mohrdieck is holding a stringed musical instrument. Since he lived in Hamburg at one time, he would
have been familiar with the sea shanty quoted in part in the message found on the table block.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Aug 5, 2020 21:18:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2020 7:39:17 GMT -5
I couldn't get Sue's link to work to see the picture. Don't know if others are having this problem so I will post the one I found from an Ohio newspaper that appeared January 8, 1936. Thanks for researching on this Sue and metje!  |
|
