|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 6, 2020 8:50:09 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. Thank you for explaining this complicated matter, Michael. Documents could have been tampered with, and many people lied in this case. If BRH's coworkers remembered him quitting at lunch time -- during the Depression, when nobody quit -- and they weren't lying, I tend to believe them. One should also remember that Max Rauch, BRH's landlord, had the Hauptmanns' electricity shut off on March 29, 1932. (They were always feuding over something.) Hauptmann had the account reinstated on Monday, April 4. This would mean, if Rauch wasn't lying, that Richard and Anna sat in the dark (and perhaps cold (not sure how they heated their apartment)) for at least five days. Would Hans Kloppenburg have visited them and spent that musical evening with them on Saturday, April 2, the night the ransom was paid, under such conditions? I doubt it. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 6, 2020 8:51:22 GMT -5
Thank you so much for your help, Amy. This aspect of the kidnapping case is new to me but very interesting to research.
The unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Pardons as prepared by Hauptmann's lawyers claimed that Isidor Fisch and
John Mohrdieck were the persons guilty of extortion and kidnapping of the Lindbergh child. The two had been close
friends, both known to Hauptmann, especially Fisch who had been his business partner. According to newspaper
accounts, Gov. Hoffman had been approached by investigators (plural) previously to suggest that Fisch and Mohrdieck
were involved in the crime. In March 1934 Fisch died in Germany so he could not be questioned, and according to
Hoffman, Mohrdieck could not be located. Although he had lived at an apartment in Brooklyn for some time, he seems
to have dropped out of sight following his detainment and questioning by investigators into the Lindbergh case.
Hauptmann did not give up, however, in spite of the rejection of his appeal to the Court of Pardons. On March 31,1936,
he wrote his final letter to Gov. Hoffman protesting his innocence. He wrote "all what I can do is to give a description
of the friend of Mr. Fisch, whom I saw for the first time when I met Mr. Fisch (description I have given already, also
all the circumstances)" So Hauptmann, who was executed on April 3, still persisted in proclaiming his innocence
and pointed to the "friend of Mr. Fisch" as one of the perpetrators. The name is not mentioned here, but the names of
John Mohrdieck and Isidor Fisch were connected to the appeal sent to the Court of Pardons in December of 1935.
John Condon and Joseph Perrone had face-to-face contact with a member of the kidnapping gang. At that time two
sketches were made of the man, composites of details from both men. These are called the Berryman sketches.
Both are authentic, according to the NJSP librarian, although there are some differences between them. I needed a
good photo of John Mohrdieck in order to compare his likeness with the sketches to search for any resemblance
between Mohrdieck and the Berryman sketches. That would be the next step in my research. The photos that
I had already were not sufficient for this exercise, so I do thank you for your assistance in this research and
will, of course, post anything that seems to be important and interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 6, 2020 13:12:25 GMT -5
Metje, I'm attempting to attach a photo in regards to your last post.  |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 6, 2020 13:39:16 GMT -5
Thank you so much for your help with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2020 8:07:29 GMT -5
A friend of mine who has been following this discussion recently sent me this photo of Mohrdieck to upload: imgur.com/0lSNo0X |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2020 8:28:23 GMT -5
[Thank you for explaining this complicated matter, Michael. Documents could have been tampered with, and many people lied in this case. If BRH's coworkers remembered him quitting at lunch time -- during the Depression, when nobody quit -- and they weren't lying, I tend to believe them. One should also remember that Max Rauch, BRH's landlord, had the Hauptmanns' electricity shut off on March 29, 1932. (They were always feuding over something.) Hauptmann had the account reinstated on Monday, April 4. This would mean, if Rauch wasn't lying, that Richard and Anna sat in the dark (and perhaps cold (not sure how they heated their apartment)) for at least five days. Would Hans Kloppenburg have visited them and spent that musical evening with them on Saturday, April 2, the night the ransom was paid, under such conditions? I doubt it. It's hard to explain in just a post but I'm going to try to.... There was a lot going on here. For example, the March 1-14 time sheets weren't even filled out by Morton. A man by the name of Robbins was really the timekeeper at that time. One of the reports actually claim that Morton didn't even begin as timekeeper until May. However, his handwriting is on the March 16 - 31 and April 1 - 14 timesheets. This could either be due to "tampering" or one might consider it as part of his "training" prior to the official transition. Like I've said, I've learned more about this than anyone would care to hear about and probably forgotten some of it since I've moved on from it about 15 years ago. As I sit here, I believe mistakes were made at the time of their creation, and in order to keep the documentation which was needed in court they "went with it" so that it couldn't be thrown out. Know what I mean? So this would show that Morton did perjure himself, but not to frame Hauptmann but more to keep the evidence they had from being neutralized with messy explanations. Hauptmann's out date was 4/2 and someone overwrote it to appear 4/4 instead. How does one go back from that without admitting an error and ruining the entire position? Once again, someone decided the best course of action was to lie. It may seem meaningless actually in the scheme of things until, as we see, how this type of thing gives rise to accusation that Hauptmann was being "framed." Technically he was as it relates to these documents, but in reality it doesn't change the fact that he did not start on March 1st. So the "remedy" was worse - not for the present but for the future history of this case. Needless to say what it does reveal, yet again, that authorities were willing to "fudge" things in order to support what they truly believed was convicting a guilty party. Kind of like Koehler's fake floorplan which I mentioned in V3. Of course it's not at the level which both Scaduto and Kennedy suggested which is important to add as well. BTW: Here is another source for Hauptmann quitting at noon (exchange took place on 9/20 in the evening): imgur.com/BUAtbYI |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 7, 2020 10:03:38 GMT -5
Thank you very much, Michael. I was not aware of this photo at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 7, 2020 15:10:18 GMT -5
[Thank you for explaining this complicated matter, Michael. Documents could have been tampered with, and many people lied in this case. If BRH's coworkers remembered him quitting at lunch time -- during the Depression, when nobody quit -- and they weren't lying, I tend to believe them. One should also remember that Max Rauch, BRH's landlord, had the Hauptmanns' electricity shut off on March 29, 1932. (They were always feuding over something.) Hauptmann had the account reinstated on Monday, April 4. This would mean, if Rauch wasn't lying, that Richard and Anna sat in the dark (and perhaps cold (not sure how they heated their apartment)) for at least five days. Would Hans Kloppenburg have visited them and spent that musical evening with them on Saturday, April 2, the night the ransom was paid, under such conditions? I doubt it. It's hard to explain in just a post but I'm going to try to.... There was a lot going on here. For example, the March 1-14 time sheets weren't even filled out by Morton. A man by the name of Robbins was really the timekeeper at that time. One of the reports actually claim that Morton didn't even begin as timekeeper until May. However, his handwriting is on the March 16 - 31 and April 1 - 14 timesheets. This could either be due to "tampering" or one might consider it as part of his "training" prior to the official transition. Like I've said, I've learned more about this than anyone would care to hear about and probably forgotten some of it since I've moved on from it about 15 years ago. As I sit here, I believe mistakes were made at the time of their creation, and in order to keep the documentation which was needed in court they "went with it" so that it couldn't be thrown out. Know what I mean? So this would show that Morton did perjure himself, but not to frame Hauptmann but more to keep the evidence they had from being neutralized with messy explanations. Hauptmann's out date was 4/2 and someone overwrote it to appear 4/4 instead. How does one go back from that without admitting an error and ruining the entire position? Once again, someone decided the best course of action was to lie. It may seem meaningless actually in the scheme of things until, as we see, how this type of thing gives rise to accusation that Hauptmann was being "framed." Technically he was as it relates to these documents, but in reality it doesn't change the fact that he did not start on March 1st. So the "remedy" was worse - not for the present but for the future history of this case. Needless to say what it does reveal, yet again, that authorities were willing to "fudge" things in order to support what they truly believed was convicting a guilty party. Kind of like Koehler's fake floorplan which I mentioned in V3. Of course it's not at the level which both Scaduto and Kennedy suggested which is important to add as well. BTW: Here is another source for Hauptmann quitting at noon (exchange took place on 9/20 in the evening): imgur.com/BUAtbYIThank you for the additional explanations and that interesting article, Michael. Hauptmann had to have been sure of the impending ransom payment. He was tipped off. By whom is the question: Condon, or even someone higher? Without such assurance, BRH could and would not have quit his job at the Majestic and certainly not at noon on April 2. He never explained where that alleged $40/week job was waiting for him or why he didn't take it. The Hauptmanns' liquid assets on quitting day amounted to about $300 dollars. (There was no money trunk.) Anna's wages from her job would have been used up in full to pay for rent and other bills and daily necessities. How was Richard going to be able to send his wife to Germany on July 1 for her mother's upcoming 70th birthday? And what did Hauptmann tell his wife to assure her that she could afford to go even without him working? Something just isn't adding up. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Aug 7, 2020 18:38:54 GMT -5
It's hard to explain in just a post but I'm going to try to.... There was a lot going on here. For example, the March 1-14 time sheets weren't even filled out by Morton. A man by the name of Robbins was really the timekeeper at that time. One of the reports actually claim that Morton didn't even begin as timekeeper until May. However, his handwriting is on the March 16 - 31 and April 1 - 14 timesheets. This could either be due to "tampering" or one might consider it as part of his "training" prior to the official transition. Like I've said, I've learned more about this than anyone would care to hear about and probably forgotten some of it since I've moved on from it about 15 years ago. As I sit here, I believe mistakes were made at the time of their creation, and in order to keep the documentation which was needed in court they "went with it" so that it couldn't be thrown out. Know what I mean? So this would show that Morton did perjure himself, but not to frame Hauptmann but more to keep the evidence they had from being neutralized with messy explanations. Hauptmann's out date was 4/2 and someone overwrote it to appear 4/4 instead. How does one go back from that without admitting an error and ruining the entire position? Once again, someone decided the best course of action was to lie. It may seem meaningless actually in the scheme of things until, as we see, how this type of thing gives rise to accusation that Hauptmann was being "framed." Technically he was as it relates to these documents, but in reality it doesn't change the fact that he did not start on March 1st. So the "remedy" was worse - not for the present but for the future history of this case. Needless to say what it does reveal, yet again, that authorities were willing to "fudge" things in order to support what they truly believed was convicting a guilty party. Kind of like Koehler's fake floorplan which I mentioned in V3. Of course it's not at the level which both Scaduto and Kennedy suggested which is important to add as well. BTW: Here is another source for Hauptmann quitting at noon (exchange took place on 9/20 in the evening): imgur.com/BUAtbYIThank you for the additional explanations and that interesting article, Michael. Hauptmann had to have been sure of the impending ransom payment. He was tipped off. By whom is the question: Condon, or even someone higher? Without such assurance, BRH could and would not have quit his job at the Majestic and certainly not at noon on April 2. He never explained where that alleged $40/week job was waiting for him or why he didn't take it. The Hauptmanns' liquid assets on quitting day amounted to about $300 dollars. (There was no money trunk.) Anna's wages from her job would have been used up in full to pay for rent and other bills and daily necessities. How was Richard going to be able to send his wife to Germany on July 1 for her mother's upcoming 70th birthday? And what did Hauptmann tell his wife to assure her that she could afford to go even without him working? Something just isn't adding up. CJ demanded that the money be ready for Saturday evening, April 2. Further he stipulated that agreement on this be confirmed by Lindbergh through him placing an ad in the New York American for Saturday morning, or in the New York Journal if the former deadline was not attained. The response which came from from Breckinridge, "Yes, everything O.K. Jafsie" appeared in both papers, so I don't think anything was missed here. Hauptmann's personal financial woes or money trunk aside, there's your forenoon tip-off and hence, Hauptmann's noon time quitting. I'm sure he had lots to get prepared for. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 7, 2020 21:45:09 GMT -5
CJ demanded that the money be ready for Saturday evening, April 2. Further he stipulated that agreement on this be confirmed by Lindbergh through him placing an ad in the New York American for Saturday morning, or in the New York Journal if the former deadline was not attained. The response which came from from Breckinridge, "Yes, everything O.K. Jafsie" appeared in both papers, so I don't think anything was missed here. Hauptmann's personal financial woes or money trunk aside, there's your forenoon tip-off and hence, Hauptmann's noon time quitting. I'm sure he had lots to get prepared for. All valid points, but still an overabundance of confidence on Hauptmann's part. Didn't he have the slightest fear that something might go wrong that night? We don't know who delivered the instructions to proceed to St. Raymond's Cemetery to Jafsie's door. What if this person (aka the invisible cabbie) had been flagged down by a more lucrative fare to take him or her someplace else? The payoff might not have happened that night. Hauptmann would have had to go home to his dark and cold apartment and wondered what to do next. It seems he never even contemplated such a scenario because he knew he didn't have to. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Aug 8, 2020 10:32:37 GMT -5
CJ demanded that the money be ready for Saturday evening, April 2. Further he stipulated that agreement on this be confirmed by Lindbergh through him placing an ad in the New York American for Saturday morning, or in the New York Journal if the former deadline was not attained. The response which came from from Breckinridge, "Yes, everything O.K. Jafsie" appeared in both papers, so I don't think anything was missed here. Hauptmann's personal financial woes or money trunk aside, there's your forenoon tip-off and hence, Hauptmann's noon time quitting. I'm sure he had lots to get prepared for. All valid points, but still an overabundance of confidence on Hauptmann's part. Didn't he have the slightest fear that something might go wrong that night? We don't know who delivered the instructions to proceed to St. Raymond's Cemetery to Jafsie's door. What if this person (aka the invisible cabbie) had been flagged down by a more lucrative fare to take him or her someplace else? The payoff might not have happened that night. Hauptmann would have had to go home to his dark and cold apartment and wondered what to do next. It seems he never even contemplated such a scenario because he knew he didn't have to. The fact that Hauptmann had to work for thirteen days between the Woodlawn meeting with Condon and his payoff at St. Raymond's, speaks clearly to him basically having been out of daily living expense funds and as you mention, unable and perhaps a bit unwilling with Rauch, to even keep the heat and lights on at home. He was now desperate for a windfall. Regardless of the uncertainty of him walking away unchallenged with the ransom payment, I can’t think of anyone with more determination and a higher sense of confidence in himself and his physical and mental abilities to achieve a goal. His life was full of such challenges and he overcame each and every one of them. Risk was his middle name, as evidenced by his military and civilian crime exploits in Germany, multiple failed attempts and finally a successful one to reach America, investing heavily in the stock market, and ultimately his unquestionably deep involvement within the LKC. And within that scheme, he firmly believed he had developed a trusting relationship with Condon and that Lindbergh was a man of his word. I believe Hauptmann considered his April 2 payday a certainty. As an aside, I can't imagine how anyone could even function let alone carry on with a daily job during this time, knowing he would essentially be exchanging a child's corpse for $50,000. Wilentz’s observation that Hauptmann had ice water in his veins is a classic understatement. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2020 13:21:24 GMT -5
CJ demanded that the money be ready for Saturday evening, April 2. Further he stipulated that agreement on this be confirmed by Lindbergh through him placing an ad in the New York American for Saturday morning, or in the New York Journal if the former deadline was not attained. The response which came from from Breckinridge, "Yes, everything O.K. Jafsie" appeared in both papers, so I don't think anything was missed here. Hauptmann's personal financial woes or money trunk aside, there's your forenoon tip-off and hence, Hauptmann's noon time quitting. I'm sure he had lots to get prepared for Hey Joe ... have you ever been stood up on a date? If so, would you ever trust this person wouldn’t do it again? Of course not. And here we are talking a little more than a dinner and a movie aren’t we? Fact is, on BOTH March 11 & 12, there was a newspaper ad in the NY American which said: Money is ready. Jafsie. And guess what? CJ showed up at Woodlawn and wound up “ass out.” He left empty handed. But he did get a nice long conversation with Condon. So tell me why Hauptmann was so sure the ransom was getting turned over on April 2nd again? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Aug 8, 2020 22:23:22 GMT -5
CJ demanded that the money be ready for Saturday evening, April 2. Further he stipulated that agreement on this be confirmed by Lindbergh through him placing an ad in the New York American for Saturday morning, or in the New York Journal if the former deadline was not attained. The response which came from from Breckinridge, "Yes, everything O.K. Jafsie" appeared in both papers, so I don't think anything was missed here. Hauptmann's personal financial woes or money trunk aside, there's your forenoon tip-off and hence, Hauptmann's noon time quitting. I'm sure he had lots to get prepared for Hey Joe ... have you ever been stood up on a date? If so, would you ever trust this person wouldn’t do it again? Of course not. And here we are talking a little more than a dinner and a movie aren’t we? Fact is, on BOTH March 11 & 12, there was a newspaper ad in the NY American which said: Money is ready. Jafsie. And guess what? CJ showed up at Woodlawn and wound up “ass out.” He left empty handed. But he did get a nice long conversation with Condon. So tell me why Hauptmann was so sure the ransom was getting turned over on April 2nd again? Have you ever been the architect of your own disappointment, Michael in a way that ultimately led to you being stood up for good reason? I'd venture Hauptmann learned very quickly from his own inexperience and impatience leading up to Woodlawn, having instructed Condon to place the ad stating the money was ready, when he had no idea whether it would, or could have been raised by that time or not. This ad placement wasn't Condon's, Breckinridge's or Lindbergh's idea, was it? I'm wondering what they were supposed to have stated in the New York American.. Yes, We Have No Money? You seem to just preferentially jump all over the fact that this ad was placed by Team Lindbergh, period and end of story. I'm sure you're aware of the other side of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 9, 2020 9:53:07 GMT -5
All valid points, but still an overabundance of confidence on Hauptmann's part. Didn't he have the slightest fear that something might go wrong that night? We don't know who delivered the instructions to proceed to St. Raymond's Cemetery to Jafsie's door. What if this person (aka the invisible cabbie) had been flagged down by a more lucrative fare to take him or her someplace else? The payoff might not have happened that night. Hauptmann would have had to go home to his dark and cold apartment and wondered what to do next. It seems he never even contemplated such a scenario because he knew he didn't have to. The fact that Hauptmann had to work for thirteen days between the Woodlawn meeting with Condon and his payoff at St. Raymond's, speaks clearly to him basically having been out of daily living expense funds and as you mention, unable and perhaps a bit unwilling with Rauch, to even keep the heat and lights on at home. He was now desperate for a windfall. Regardless of the uncertainty of him walking away unchallenged with the ransom payment, I can’t think of anyone with more determination and a higher sense of confidence in himself and his physical and mental abilities to achieve a goal. His life was full of such challenges and he overcame each and every one of them. Risk was his middle name, as evidenced by his military and civilian crime exploits in Germany, multiple failed attempts and finally a successful one to reach America, investing heavily in the stock market, and ultimately his unquestionably deep involvement within the LKC. And within that scheme, he firmly believed he had developed a trusting relationship with Condon and that Lindbergh was a man of his word. I believe Hauptmann considered his April 2 payday a certainty. As an aside, I can't imagine how anyone could even function let alone carry on with a daily job during this time, knowing he would essentially be exchanging a child's corpse for $50,000. Wilentz’s observation that Hauptmann had ice water in his veins is a classic understatement. You are describing Hauptmann perfectly, Joe. He was the ultimate risk taker, a steel-faced liar, a convicted criminal, and never one to give up. I'm more puzzled (disturbed) by the omissions of the CAL camp on April 2 and at other times. There was no excuse not to grill the neutral cabbie (if that is what he was and if he even existed) about the person who gave him the note. If this person was an emissary of BRH himself, they had a direct link to the kidnapper in the flesh. After Charlie's body was found, CAL should have appealed to that person to come forward with any information he had. If the person was an accomplice, a detailed description of him should have been circulated in the press. Shoenfeld's suggestion of checking the DMV records in the Bronx for a German carpenter with a 1929/'30 Dodge Sedan should have been followed. None of that was done. Also, Hauptmann was a heavy smoker. Could he have sat next to Jafsie on that park bench at Woodlawn for an hour and 15 minutes without smoking? (Perhaps – BRH had iron willpower.) If he did smoke, Jafsie failed to mention it. The lit match(es) and each drag would have given Jafsie a perfect look at CJ's face. Jafsie never even mentioned that CJ smelled of cigarettes, which he must have (his varicose veins were exacerbated by heavy tobacco use). It's these omissions that make me think BRH had protection from the Lindbergh camp, even after Charlie was found, and that his confidence about the payout on April 2 was boosted by that knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2020 9:23:35 GMT -5
Have you ever been the architect of your own disappointment, Michael in a way that ultimately led to you being stood up for good reason? I'd venture Hauptmann learned very quickly from his own inexperience and impatience leading up to Woodlawn, having instructed Condon to place the ad stating the money was ready, when he had no idea whether it would, or could have been raised by that time or not. This ad placement wasn't Condon's, Breckinridge's or Lindbergh's idea, was it? I'm wondering what they were supposed to have stated in the New York American.. Yes, We Have No Money? You seem to just preferentially jump all over the fact that this ad was placed by Team Lindbergh, period and end of story. I'm sure you're aware of the other side of the story. Joe - you were the one who brought up the ad as an explanation in the first place. It's not my fault that it fails once all circumstances are probably evaluated. "Who" placed the ad is irrelevant to this point. Besides, this is just double talk coming for you Joe. On one hand you claim Hauptmann needed money so he got a job. On the other hand, he's a risk taker so he quits said job. But if he's a risk taker why take the job in the first place? Or if he needs the money, why quit when he's merely gambling that he's going to get the ransom ... a gamble he LOST previously on March 12? But I thought he needed money? He paid a $10 fee for that job and expected to start March 1 but didn't start until March 21. So, you see, you cannot have it both ways. There is another more logical explanation here and its one you are clearly evading. I suggest that you ask yourself "why" you would do that instead of this song & dance routine. Next, for those who believe Condon was an honest guy then Hauptmann was not CJ. Why? Because his footprint wasn't a match, and it was Condon who asserted that print was made by CJ via eyewitness account. Next, he claimed Hauptmann was NOT him, and it wasn't until he was coerced into making that identification that it actually occurred. Of course the basis for the coercion was the belief among LE that Condon was lying and trying to protect Hauptmann so pick your poison. We also know the Look-Out was not Hauptmann according to Condon as well. So was the guy honest? Its time to throw out the slide rule and be honest with oneself. This was NOT a one-man operation. And so, when looking at everything the blinders must come off. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 9:25:56 GMT -5
Since this thread is about Isidor Fisch, I wanted to post a Flemington cell conversation that took place between Anna Hauptmann and Richard on October 24, 1934. In this conversation, Hauptmann makes the statement to Anna that if Fisch were still alive he wouldn't be sitting in jail. BRH must have believed that Fisch would have explained to authorities that he handed over the garage money to Hauptmann just as Richard was saying! Would Fisch have really made such a statement to police? There is no denying these men were in business together, so I wonder how Fisch might have explained that shoe box money?? imgur.com/mMRXKpm |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 10, 2020 12:42:11 GMT -5
I just saw the earlier thread re: the Eve Bates book in which the author refers to Izzy and Dick. "Dick" may be
a nickname prompted by the last name of John Mohrdieck. "Dick" was said to have come to the US in 1923;
that matches the date that Mohrdieck arrived from Germany. Interesting that "Dick" was said to be a carpenter
prior to his association with Isidor's fur business. Hauptmann claimed in 1935 that Mohrdick was a friend and
associate of Fisch and that both were involved in the crimes of the Lindbergh kidnapping and extortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 11:11:26 GMT -5
Interesting post concerning the use of Dick and John Mohrdieck possibly being the same person in Eve Bates book. I do believe Eve Bates is claiming Dick in this story is Hauptmann, however. I am not aware of Mohrdieck being a carpenter. In the 1930 census he is listed as being employed as a salesman in an upholstery house. Later, in 1940 his occupation is listed as boat building in a ship yard. This could have involved upholstery work on boats. Hauptmann was called Dick by his friends in America. If one believes Fisch and Hauptmann did not know each other until 1932 then I suppose who Dick is could be open to someone other than Hauptmann or perhaps Eve is mistaken in her memory about the date this visit occurred. I think it is up to the researcher to decide how much value to place upon this story.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 11, 2020 13:36:07 GMT -5
Following the kidnapping of the Lindbergh child, investigators interviewed John Condon and taxi-cab driver Joseph
Perrone requesting their cooperation in developing a sketch of a man connected with the kidnapping. Both had seen
this man directly in conversation and encounter. (The assumption was that both had seen the same person.) Two
sketches were developed according to their descriptions, composites of the details submitted by both. According to
Mark Falzini, both sketches are authentic although which was developed first is not known. Some differences can
be detected between the two. For the sake of convenience I have labelled them #1 A and B and #2. Hauptmann
was said to resemble #1 A and B.
After Hauptmann was convicted of kidnapping and extortion and sentenced to death, he appealed to the New Jersey
Court of Pardons, claiming that the crimes were actually committed by Isidor Fisch and his friend John Morhdieck.
The appeal was denied although Hauptmann continued to profess his innocence and maintain the guilt of Fisch,
his former business partner, and Mordieck, whose family also had some financial dealings with Fisch. The
purpose here is to compare the likeness of John Mohrdieck with the police sketches to discover any possible
resemblances which might indicate possible involvement in the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh jr.
Condon met with a member of the kidnapping gang twice, both in or near cemeteries in the Bronx. According
to his description, the man's face was triangular with the point lopped off at the chin. Mohrdick's face does have
such a formation. The mouth is an excellent match with those in the police sketches. Mohrdieck's chin resembles
the chin found on the sketches, together with the whiskers on the cheeks, down the jaw line and under the chin.
The eyes appear to be a good llkeness although in Sketch 2 they are squinty resembling the narrowing of the
eyes in one photo, which seem to happen when Mohrdieck smiles. The eyebrows present a problem. These
appear to be dark and arched in one photo but do resemble the brows found in a second photo. The hairline
and forehead are hidden beneath a hat, so we cannot draw any conclusion regarding these.
John Condon had difficulty trying to identify Hauptmann as the man with whom he conversed in the
cemeteries, but he was finally persuaded to do so in court. There are some problems with his description.
John Mohrdieck's height was about 5'7'', not the five foot, eight, nine, or possibly ten that Condon suggested.
He was stout for his height; Condon called CJ "stocky." Hauptmann uses the phrase "stout and short" in
his correspondence with Gov. Hoffman, referring to "a friend of Mr. Fisch" by whom he meant Mordieck.
Condon indicated that the weight of CJ was between 158 and 165 pounds, not a bad estimate for a stocky
man of about 5'7". Certainly Hauptmann's weight was more than this estimate, however. The shoe size
for a man of 5'7" would be about size 8 or perhaps a size 9. Further, Condon stated that CJ had a light
complexion, a pointed chin, large ears, as well as the triangular face. He also mentions a prominent
forehead, which Mohrdieck certainly possessed although it would not have been seen unless he removed
his hat. Regardless of his weight, the man was agile enough to climb the cemetery gate and run half a
mile to the park where the conversation took place. Drooping shoulders are also said to be a characteristic
of CJ. Hauptmann did not have drooping shoulders and Mohrdieck's shoulders are not completely
visible though what we do see suggests that they drooped.
Condon estimates CJ's age at about middle 30s. Mohrdieck would have been 26 years old a the time
of the conversation, so the age given is problematic.
The reluctance of John Condon to identify BR Hauptmann initially could have indicated that Hauptmann
did not resemble the man in his memory well enough for him to be sure that BRH was CJ. He was
persuaded somehow to make the identification finally in open court, as did Joseph Perrone. They
may well have pointed their fingers at the wrong man. Even if they were mistaken, Hauptmann
might still have been complicit and worked with other member of the gang.
Thanks to everyone who sent photos and gave assistance. This research is truly a collaboration
of board members, guests, and friends. More later if further information emerges.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 11, 2020 13:59:27 GMT -5
Attached please find copies of the photos and sketches referred to in the post above.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 11, 2020 15:03:22 GMT -5
I am having difficulty sending the photos and sketches. Can anyone give me (a novice in technology)
some directions? Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 15:07:12 GMT -5
Hi Metje,
You certainly put together a nice compilation for a Fisch/Mohrdieck theory. I agree that Condon was very reluctant to identify BRH and really did not do so until the Flemington trial. Cab driver Perrone was prepped before he made the ID of Hauptmann and the line up used for this ID was a sham. Based on the theory you have shared, what role do you assign to Hauptmann if you do not think he is CJ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 15:11:50 GMT -5
Michael,
Did Gov. Hoffman ever look into a Fisch/Mohrdieck angle to the Lindbergh kidnapping crime? Gov. Hoffman firmly believed that Hauptmann had accomplices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2020 16:22:00 GMT -5
Michael, Did Gov. Hoffman ever look into a Fisch/Mohrdieck angle to the Lindbergh kidnapping crime? Gov. Hoffman firmly believed that Hauptmann had accomplices. There’s a small collection in a folder in the Hoffman Collection on Mohrdieck but it’s nothing “significant.” That’s not to say one didn’t exist at one time, but that’s all there is now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 8:33:50 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. I will add this to my archives research list!
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 12, 2020 9:19:54 GMT -5
Response to Amy's question: Next I hope to work on a possible relationship Isidor Fisch may have had with John
Mordieck's parents. They knew each other in Germany before Fisch immigrated to the US. John may have been involved
with the kidnapping, but he would not have been "Number One" given his age and his responses to Condon's questions.
CJ actually refers to "Number One" in one conversation. He also responds "They would smack me" if he reports that Condon
offered to stay with the baby as hostage until the ransom is paid. So the boss is someone else (or possibly "bosses" since the
the pronoun is plural). "Smack me" is a kid's expression to an anticipated parental action. OK, so I'm fishing, but that's how an
idea starts. I hope to send copies of the police sketches and John Mohrdieck's photos later today. Maybe my
grandson can help me.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 12, 2020 9:36:22 GMT -5
I also now recall that CJ responded at one point that his "mother" would not approve of a suggestion Condon made.
Another source reports he said "father." I will check on the context of this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 11:17:56 GMT -5
Response to Amy's question: Next I hope to work on a possible relationship Isidor Fisch may have had with John Mordieck's parents. They knew each other in Germany before Fisch immigrated to the US. Just a couple of facts I have learned about John Mohrdieck after going through some of my Fisch investigative reports. According to John's mother, Betty, she believed John and Isidor met through Mr. Kirsten (father of Gerta Henkel) in America. She does not mention knowing Fisch in Germany. When she and John came to America in 1923, they sailed together. Mrs. Mohrdieck had family in Brooklyn New York she would be joining. If anyone has anything they can add about John's family history, please share. In 1931, Fisch did receive money from the Mohrdieck family as an investment. As collateral, Fisch gave them Certificate #5 for ten shares of the Knickerbocker Pie Company. Fisch never had to repay this investment money (Isidor offered to before he left for Germany in 1933) as the Mohrdiecks had great faith in Isidor and told him to keep the money and invest it for them. I wanted to share this as something to consider in your theory that Fisch and Mohrdieck worked the Lindbergh kidnapping together. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 14, 2020 18:47:53 GMT -5
Thank you very much for this information. I will keep working with this angle and will post
any new information that emerges.
Here is an image that was posted some time ago. It seems to relate to our discussion here.
The photo is not dated, but it shows Isidor Fisch (unmistakable!) probably engaging in his
fur business. The woman on the right looks like Anna Hauptmann. If she is in the picture,
we can assume that BRH is in the vicinity. The man in the car does not present a full facial
image, but he does resemble John Mohrdieck. He has John's eyes, eyebrows, the nose and
the forehead.
imgur.com/GQk8Aww
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Aug 15, 2020 11:24:25 GMT -5
More information here regarding John Mohrdieck, the friend of Isidor Fisch. According to John's Declaration of Intention filed in
July of 1924, he arrived in the US in May of 1923. He states that he is 18 years old (as of 1924) with fair complexion, brown hair,
and gray eyes. He is 5'7" tall and weighs 126 pounds. He was born in Schoenebeck, Germany on March 13, 1906. His occupation
is "pianomaker." He sailed from Hamburg, Germany on the Mount Clinton. He states that he is living at 166 Warfield St. in
Brooklyn. He will receive his naturalization papers in 1929, according to another document, when he is 23 years of age.
John's mother, Betty Mohrdieck, also filed a Declaration of Intention at the same time. She states that she is a widow with the
occupation of housekeeper. She gives her age as 53 years (as of 1924). She also has a fair complexion, brown hair, and gray
eyes. She is 5'6" tall and a hefty 171 pounds. She was born in Hammersbach, Germany, and resided in Schoenebeck. She
also emigrated to the US on the Mount Clinton, arriving on the same date as John did. Her current address is different from
John's though. She states that she is living at 960 Myrtle Ave. in Brooklyn.
Both state their intention to become American citizens in this document.
|
|
