Remembering Isidor Fisch

[Michael]

Aug 14, 2020 18:47:53 GMT -5 metje said:

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.

I am not familiar with this picture but no one looks like Anna to me. Looks like it originated on Getty Images so perhaps there is a description available on their site if you can find it there.

[lurp173]

Metje,

In reference to the last photo you posted, the man in the vehicle is identified as being Henry Uhlig.


Michael,

Did the NJSP ever put any value into Ellis Sanborn's statement as to Fisch?  The most I could find was that Sanborn, a carpenter in Maine, identified Fisch from a photo spread as being the person who attempted to recruit him (Sanborn) in a kidnapping plot in June of 1933.  Thanks. 

[metje]

The man in the car does not resemble Henry Uhlig at all.  The "identifications" are often misleading.
Take the photo of "John's Birthday Party" e.g. We had to do some digging with that one.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2020 13:58:59 GMT -5 metje said:

The man in the car does not resemble Henry Uhlig at all.  The "identifications" are often misleading.
Take the photo of "John's Birthday Party" e.g. We had to do some digging with that one.

metje,

In the November 26, 1934 investigative report concerning Fisch, I believe the picture was discussed in this report. One of the females in the picture is Katie Maynes, married, who police interviewed. She identified Uhlig in that picture. I believe Katie is Hermine Pefferly's cousin. I don't know which one is Katie out of the three women in the picture. The other two women are not identified either. I can assure you that Anna Hauptmann is not in that picture. Here is the paragraph from that police report concerning this picture:

"10. In furtherance of Para. #3 of this officer's report of this date, proceeded to 34-20 34th St., Astoria, L.I., and there interviewed Mrs. Katie Maynes. Mrs. Maynes stated that her husband, upon seeing her picture in the daily news in the company of Fisch and Uhlig and two other girls had proceeded to the Bronx and advised Dets. Murphy and Kranz as to the identity of his wife in the picture, but that she had never been questioned relative to Fisch. Mrs. Maynes stated that she had known Fisch for a considerable length of time but she had not seen him for at least four and a half years previous to his leaving to Germany. She stated that she met Fisch frequently at parties at the Pefferly home, that he never seemed particularly interested in any particular girl, that he associated with Uhlig and that he had never asked her for a loan of money. Mrs. Maynes seemed very reluctant to discuss certain phases of the so-called parties at the Pefferly home. Outside of the general clique of friends of Pefferly, Mrs. Maynes did not know any other friends of Fisch."

The getty image photo we are discussing here:

[Michael]

Aug 15, 2020 13:04:35 GMT -5 lurp173 said:

Did the NJSP ever put any value into Ellis Sanborn's statement as to Fisch? The most I could find was that Sanborn, a carpenter in Maine, identified Fisch from a photo spread as being the person who attempted to recruit him (Sanborn) in a kidnapping plot in June of 1933.  Thanks.

There really isn't much on Sanborn at the NJSP Archives. His story hit the papers in late December 1934. Usually, something like this would be read by NJ Authorities and a courtesy request made to Local or State PD to check it out for them. Unfortunately, there isn't anything in my folder on him to document that. It could be that I missed it but I don't believe so. Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen - just that its not there now. As an example, there are several marked folders in the Hoffman Collection that are empty. This proves they contained something at one time but its impossible to know exactly what. As it concerns Ellis Sanborn, I did find one thing in the Hoffman Collection. It's a typed unsigned letter. From my experience, the original was probably handwritten but the Governor had his secretary type it up for better quality. It could have been from a PI or a Local who was interested to help out. Usually the Governor would respond asking for anything additional they could provide but I don't have that either. It could be there but its hard to believe I wouldn't have copied it if it was. Anyway according to this letter, Sanborn got in touch with authorities who did send an investigator - something that supports what I've suggested above. Here it is:


imgur.com/MlYsre9

imgur.com/oEEXKEj

imgur.com/55ci1xW

imgur.com/dJhaQZQ

[Deleted]

This story was brought to my attention by another person who posts occasionally on this board. The little bit I can add is that the woman mentioned as Irma is actually Erna Cahn. She married Ellis Sanborn in April 1927. However, in 1928 she is listed as living and employed as Erna Sanborn in Montclair New Jersey. My understanding is that she had been employed as a governess. I believe this proposition to Ellis was made while he and Erna were still married. Could the girl they wanted to target have been a child that Erna had cared for at some point? Ellis Sanborn married again in 1937 so he was either divorced or Erna died. I have not yet been able to confirm what brought their marriage to an end.

I am going to post the story that appeared about Sanborn and Fisch. It is from the Boston Globe, December 19, 1934.

imgur.com/vI5yQGS Page One

imgur.com/RwwSeG1 Page Two

imgur.com/irgHL4O Page Three

imgur.com/gwCwPFP Page Four

[lurp173]

Thank you very much Michael and Amy.  The research materal you both have on this case continues to amaze me.  There are so many interesting side events in this case.  Fisch was such a unique looking individual that most people would probably recall him from any previous contact.  It appears from the information you both provided that this Sanborn story was examined, but in December of 1934 I would speculate that Wilentz was not interested in implicating Fisch or anyone else other than Hauptmann.  At this point, I tend to believe that Fisch was  involved in this crime with Hauptmann, even if it was just laundering the ransom  money.  Thanks again for that information on Sanborn.

[metje]

Aug 11, 2020 13:36:07 GMT -5 metje said:

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]

The images did not show well enough,  but they can also be found on 

imgur.com/a/RFtZn2a

[metje]

Aug 15, 2020 11:24:25 GMT -5 metje said:

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. 

Correction:  The Declaration of Intention lists John Mohrdieck's address (apparently) as 166 Warfield St. as I indicated above.
I cannot find a Warfield St. The name is most likely 166 Weirfield St. located in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn and not
far from the Myrtle Ave. address where John's mother Betty lived.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2020 16:52:19 GMT -5 metje said:

The images did not show well enough,  but they can also be found on 

I think you did a great job with the image picture you shared in your earlier post. I could not get the imgur link to work.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2020 10:41:53 GMT -5 metje said:

Aug 15, 2020 11:24:25 GMT -5 metje said:

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. 

Correction:  The Declaration of Intention lists John Mohrdieck's address (apparently) as 166 Warfield St. as I indicated above.
I cannot find a Warfield St. The name is most likely 166 Weirfield St. located in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn and not
far from the Myrtle Ave. address where John's mother Betty lived.

Great research, metje! Thanks for sharing it.

[metje]

  
More information re:  John Mohrdieck, friend of Isidor Fisch

According to John Mohrdieck's Declaration of Intention in 1924, he was a piano maker.  In 1930 he was an upholstery salesman, and
in 1940 he is reported to be a boat maker.  This information would indicate that he had some knowledge of carpentry.  In 1939 he
was unemployed for that entire year (years 1931 to 1938 are not recorded).  He has had little education-- fourth grade education
is indicated, which would have been a part of his life while  in Schoneback, Germany. In 1940 at age 34 he was still unmarried
and living with his mother at the Bushwick Ave. address which was rented at $23. per month.  This area in Brooklyn appears to
be a good, even a desirable place to live.
 

[metje]

Some observations on previous posts:  John Mohrdieck went to school only through the fourth grade, the last grade in the German
elementary school system. Although he was of the right age, he did not go to the German middle school which he would have
completed at about age 14 and then gone to a high school, whether vocational or academic. So there appears to be some 
problem here, possibly with health as he was 5'7'' when he emigrated to the US but weighed only 126 pounds at that time.
The German economy was in chaos following World War I.  John's mother was a widow; she may have lost her husband
during the war and was having problems financially.  Her relatives (or her husband's relatives) located in New York appear
to have been doing fairly well. They lived in a good area and lent Fisch $800, then declined payment when he offered to
repay them.  John was unemployed for a time during the 1930s although the US economy was gaining strength following
the depression. How would he and his mother survive without employment? She was aging in the 1930s and very much
overweight at the time she emigrated to the U.S.  Her occupation was listed as "housekeeper" so she would hardly have
been able to do much work to support herself and John though she is listed as head of the household in 1930.  John is listed
as head of the household  in the 1940 census, but he had just begun work as a boat builder.  So there are a few
unanswered questions in this story;  some pieces are missing.

[Deleted]

What I can add to your research, metje is that John Mohrdieck did marry in New York in August 1941 to Jennie Zuss. John's mother died in Brooklyn, New York Sept. 27, 1955. John would pass away in Brooklyn, April 1968.

[metje]

Thank you so much for the information, Amy.

[metje]

     A recent post referred to "My Speckled Tales and Other Dimensions" by Eve Bates. The book was printed in 2006, and its particular
interest for board members and guests and be found in the chapter called "No Schtick Nose in Dat T'ing." Here the author describes a visit
from "Izzy" and "Dick" to her uncle's home in Riverside, New Jersey, as they negotiate a deal with her cousin Stan to purchase muskrat
pelts for their fur business. According to the foreword written by Eve's two daughters, the collection contains many myths and tales, but
a few are taken from real life situations. A prominent example of the latter (they state specifically) is the chapter connecting the family's
involvement with the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh jr. "Izzy" is the nickname for Isidor, and "Dick" is the nickname for Richard.
The two partners in the fur business were known to the Widzenas family only by these nicknames.

    Eve Bates was born in 1918 in Camden, New Jersey. (She should not be confused with a contemporary also named Eve Bates who
was born in 1911 in New York.)  Eve saw Izzy and Dick on only one occasion although they made several trips to Riverside to do business
with young Stan.  Eve states that she was nearly eleven years old on this occasion and it was winter time. So the year can be established
as 1929, and this occasion was their second visit. Subsequently the two made several other visits to her uncle's home, the last being
in January of 1932 at which time no deal was struck, and Izzy and Dick left empty-handed. It appeared to Eve's relatives that their
fur business was not doing well.  Dick said that Izzy was intended to go back to Germany and that he himself was planning to return
there himself before very long.

    Eve Bates recognized "Dick" as Richard Hauptmann when his photos appeared in newspapers following his arrest for the kidnapping
of the Lindberghs' child. She mentions that Dick was of medium build with brown hair and blue eyes. He told her that his mother's name
was Pauline, which is in fact the name of Hauptmann's mother. It was Hauptmann who sorted the 300 pelts purchased into piles indicating
their respective worth and negotiated the price with Stan. So he was an active partner, not merely a recorder of the transactions.
Isidor did not speak during the visit but nodded his approval or shook his head if he disagreed, so he obviously was in control. Izzy was
having "a bad day" according to Dick; he coughed constantly and brought up phlegm. Izzy may not have been able to converse in
English very well and so needed a partner who could speak English with non-German customers and also could provide
transportation.

    Hauptmann's relationship with Fisch then began years before January of 1932. He would have needed to learn much about the fur
business and facts concerning the pelts themselves before interacting with customers. Therefore, when Hauptmann stated that he knew
Fisch beginning in 1932, he lied, not wanting to reveal his true relationship with Isidor Fisch. When their business began to fail in
the fall of 1931 and the spring of 1932, the two may then have looked to find another way to make their money. 





 

[Deleted]

metje,

Isidor Fisch spoke good English. He had attended night school once he came to America. Hauptmann was not a real talkative guy. It is hard for me to see the man who is called Dick in Eve Bate's story as being Hauptmann. Although I personally think Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other before the kidnapping, I am not so sure that relationship dates back as far as 1929. There is nothing I have seen in the reports I have currently reviewed that show Hauptmann was dealing in furs with Fisch at that point in time. Fisch did have other friends in the fur business. Hauptmann was doing carpentry work in 1929 so the unemployed aspect Eve mentions doesn't fit with the facts either.

[metje]

Yes, Isidor Fisch did have other friends in the fur business.  One of them was Henry Uhlig.  On the 1940 census Uhlig
lists his employment as "furrier," and in his obituary he is called a "retired furrier."  So he may well have been working
with Fisch in the fur business at the time of the kidnapping and would therefore know of Richard Hauptmann's
relationship with Fisch.  Uhlig may have known much more than he was willing to relate at the time of the
trial, as he was called to testify.

[metje]

      In her book "Speckled Tales" Eve Bates recalled that she was not quite eleven years old and that she told "Dick" that
her confirmation name was to be "Paula."  The man "Dick" whom she identified as Hauptmann then responded that 
his mother's name was Pauline, which was actually the first name of Hauptmann's mother. Confirmation is an important
ceremony for a young person in the Roman Catholic church, of which Eve was a member.  She would remember this
ceremony as an important one in her life, and subsequently she would be given a certificate of confirmation with the
date on it. So this story appears to be real.  

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2020 12:34:22 GMT -5 metje said:

Yes, Isidor Fisch did have other friends in the fur business.  One of them was Henry Uhlig.  On the 1940 census Uhlig
lists his employment as "furrier," and in his obituary he is called a "retired furrier."  So he may well have been working
with Fisch in the fur business at the time of the kidnapping and would therefore know of Richard Hauptmann's
relationship with Fisch.  Uhlig may have known much more than he was willing to relate at the time of the
trial, as he was called to testify.

Henry Uhlig is an interesting person in all of this. Uhlig and Fisch being furriers together goes back to their time together in Leipzig, Germany, under Hermann Kirsten, father of Gerta Henkel. Uhlig would arrive in America first in Sept. 1925. Fisch would arrive in December 1925. Both these men would share a residence until after the kidnapping and ransom payment had taken place. They then took up residence separately but remained friendly for the most part.

I have always wondered about what Uhlig might have come to know about the relationship between Hauptmann and Fisch. Fisch was always careful about overlapping his circles of friends. Since he often portrayed himself and his circumstances differently to different people, Fisch did not want this fact to be discovered among his various friends.

Uhlig found himself in a difficult position once Hauptmann was arrested and the relationship between BRH and Fisch became known. Uhlig found himself in the middle of two hot places and understood he needed to keep himself from getting burned because of it. He would have to walk the line between what he did or could know and share safely about these two men. Henry Uhlig would be called as a defense witness at the Flemington Trial. According to a police report from December 10th, 1934, the NJSP were requested by AG Wilentz to bring in Uhlig to Trenton N.J. for questioning. According to that report, Henry at first agreed to go but then on advice of Lawyer Reilly, he would not go. On December 11th, 1934 it was decided that New York Police Detective Max Leef would engaged in subterfuge to try to bring Henry Uhlig in for questioning.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2020 13:18:48 GMT -5 metje said:

      In her book "Speckled Tales" Eve Bates recalled that she was not quite eleven years old and that she told "Dick" that
her confirmation name was to be "Paula."  The man "Dick" whom she identified as Hauptmann then responded that 
his mother's name was Pauline, which was actually the first name of Hauptmann's mother. Confirmation is an important
ceremony for a young person in the Roman Catholic church, of which Eve was a member.  She would remember this
ceremony as an important one in her life, and subsequently she would be given a certificate of confirmation with the
date on it. So this story appears to be real.  

Like I said in an earlier post, each researcher will have to decide the weight they give this story related by Eve Bates.

[Joe]

Aug 10, 2020 9:23:35 GMT -5 Michael said:

Aug 8, 2020 22:23:22 GMT -5 Joe said:

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.

Michael, it never fails to amaze how you continually seem to ignore Occam’s Razor, forever in the background, offering to cut through and make life much simpler. You seem to be forgetting the fact that the ransom money was not in a position to be handed over on March 12, even though CJ’s instructions were for Lindbergh to place an ad saying that the money was ready the previous week. Ask yourself, if this really had been a case of Lindbergh wanting to finally rid himself of some greedy and pestering kidnapping plan participant who had already been paid once, why the almighty and powerful Lindbergh (as you seem to see him, as required) was unable to raise the money by the evening of March 12. Why would he mess around at the apparent eleventh hour after placing the ad? Furthermore, what on earth is a guy like CJ, whom you seem to believe has already been once rewarded handsomely, looking for a mundane job while this “secondary payment” is being orchestrated? $#!+ happens in the real world, as I'm sure it must in alternate universes. You and I may never truly understand the true dynamics and interplay of factors large and small on both sides, that contributed to the ultimate ransom money exchange for a note of instruction on April 2. Instead you lay out a serving of bafflegab as you have above, that only spins more heads than attempts to enlighten them. Even though I believe I know what’s coming, what is the more logical explanation I’m clearly avoiding?

[Michael]

Aug 30, 2020 10:02:39 GMT -5 Joe said:

Michael, it never fails to amaze how you continually seem to ignore Occam’s Razor, forever in the background, offering to cut through and make life much simpler. You seem to be forgetting the fact that the ransom money was not in a position to be handed over on March 12, even though CJ’s instructions were for Lindbergh to place an ad saying that the money was ready the previous week. Ask yourself, if this really had been a case of Lindbergh wanting to finally rid himself of some greedy and pestering kidnapping plan participant who had already been paid once, why the almighty and powerful Lindbergh (as you seem to see him, as required) was unable to raise the money by the evening of March 12. Why would he mess around at the apparent eleventh hour after placing the ad? Furthermore, what on earth is a guy like CJ, whom you seem to believe has already been once rewarded handsomely, looking for a mundane job while this “secondary payment” is being orchestrated? $#!+ happens in the real world, as I'm sure it must in alternate universes. You and I may never truly understand the true dynamics and interplay of factors large and small on both sides, that contributed to the ultimate ransom money exchange for a note of instruction on April 2. Instead you lay out a serving of bafflegab as you have above, that only spins more heads than attempts to enlighten them. Even though I believe I know what’s coming, what is the more logical explanation I’m clearly avoiding?

LOL. You're killing me Joe!

Everything I have mentioned demands consideration and a rational response. You aren't doing either but instead choose to ignore them.  On top of that, I get a new adjective as if that invalidates these points you've evaded. Hint: It doesn't.  While its funny (see the LOL above), it cannot serve any real purpose other than to distract from your inability to fit them into your narrative.

The other point that you are making just isn't true (see below).  

Aug 30, 2020 10:02:39 GMT -5 Joe said:

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the ransom money was not in a position to be handed over on March 12, even though CJ’s instructions were for Lindbergh to place an ad saying that the money was ready the previous week. Ask yourself, if this really had been a case of Lindbergh wanting to finally rid himself of some greedy and pestering kidnapping plan participant who had already been paid once, why the almighty and powerful Lindbergh (as you seem to see him, as required) was unable to raise the money by the evening of March 12. Why would he mess around at the apparent eleventh hour after placing the ad?

Joe, the ransom money was ready on March 2nd when $50,000 was obtained from First National Bank of New York.  Of that $2500 was removed, but on March 3rd another $2500 was obtained from First National to replace it.  According to the reports, the listing of these numbers was made.  Once the demand for an increase of $20,000 came in the ransom note, that amount was obtained that night after banking hours.  So not only could Lindbergh raise the money on any day he wanted, he had the power to open a bank that was closed! On March 12th, yet another lot of $50,000 was obtained from First National.  On March 14th, $50,000 was redeposited into the First National Bank of New York.

Summary up to March 14 according to the reports:

Up to this time J. P. Morgan & Company had handled $122,500 of currency.  $50,000, in bills had been redeposited, leaving the balance of $72,500.  Of this amount, $2500 had been paid out.  The balance of $70,000 had been wrapped in two packages, one of $50,000 and one of $20,000. 

[Mbg]

Something else needs to be taken into consideration here. The instructions for the size of the money packet (6 x 7 x 14 inches) were received by Jafsie in a letter for CAL on March 9. Breck had allegedly instructed Jafsie to take care of this matter right away. Why did it take Jafsie until March 25 (Good Friday) to pick up the ransom box from Abe Samuelsohn? He must have known that the ransom payment would not take place until sometime after that date, regardless of when the money was ready.

[Deleted]

You know what else needs to be considered in all this. The ransom amount was raised to $70,000 in the March 4th ransom note that was mailed to Lindbergh's house. So why didn't the size of the packet(box) which was asked for after this known increase was made be adjusted to accommodate the additional money asked for? As I see it, this is more proof that the extra $20,000 was strictly for the extra person who was added to this extortion. That person is John F. Condon.

[Mbg]

Aug 30, 2020 19:58:54 GMT -5 @amy35 said:

You know what else needs to be considered in all this. The ransom amount was raised to $70,000 in the March 4th ransom note that was mailed to Lindbergh's house. So why didn't the size of the packet(box) which was asked for after this known increase was made be adjusted to accommodate the additional money asked for? As I see it, this is more proof that the extra $20,000 was strictly for the extra person who was added to this extortion. That person is John F. Condon.

Excellent point! It looks like the additional $20,000 was never intended to be paid to the kidnapper(s) in that box. My personal guess is it was a clumsy attempt by the key players orchestrating the ransom payment to make Jafsie look good rather than to implicate him in the extortion. One can look at it from two different angles.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2020 21:07:36 GMT -5 Mbg said:

It looks like the additional $20,000 was never intended to be paid to the kidnapper(s) in that box. My personal guess is it was a clumsy attempt by the key players orchestrating the ransom payment to make Jafsie look good rather than to implicate him in the extortion. One can look at it from two different angles.

My personal guess is, it is exactly what it looks like. Because CAL failed to open the nursery note before he called the police to report the "kidnapping" of his son, CAL would "have to take the consequences" as the March 4 note says. One of those consequences was the increase in the ransom amount because they have to "take another person to it". Lindbergh was expected to cover this cost of an additional person. It was not going to come out of the $50,000 dollars the kidnappers wanted for themselves.

I am not sure what you mean by "it was a clumsy attempt by the key players...to make Jafsie look good rather then to implicate him in the extortion." Could you explain this further for me. My thinking has been that the Bronx Home News letter would be Condon's protection from being implicated in the extortion. This letter was planned after Condon accepted a deal (money and fame) to give Condon's entry the appearance of an innocent act by him. My opinion is that the key player who knew Condon, also had something on Condon that they could hold over his (Condon) head once he would learn (March 12) that the child was dead and no exchange of child for money could take place.

[Mbg]

I think Jafsie was brought into the case by Breck, who likely had met Jafsie decades earlier through athletic events or activities. Breck was a famous fencer with an Olympic medal. A fellow fencer and head of the US Olympic committee at the time (Gustavus Kirby) had co-founded a NY athletic league with Jafsie. When Jafsie is introduced to Breck during the case, he immediately preempts any prior acquaintance by stating/asking: "You don't know me. You have never met me before." Jafsie, a stickler for proper grammar and spelling, misspelled Lindbergh's name in his letter to the BHN, feigning an impromptu action. Same with Breck's name: misspells it constantly. I believe that the saved $20,000 was supposed to make Jafsie look good. It was never intended to be paid to CJ. That's just my opinion, and it's certainly open to attack.

[Joe]

Aug 30, 2020 16:26:36 GMT -5 Michael said:

Aug 30, 2020 10:02:39 GMT -5 Joe said:

Michael, it never fails to amaze how you continually seem to ignore Occam’s Razor, forever in the background, offering to cut through and make life much simpler. You seem to be forgetting the fact that the ransom money was not in a position to be handed over on March 12, even though CJ’s instructions were for Lindbergh to place an ad saying that the money was ready the previous week. Ask yourself, if this really had been a case of Lindbergh wanting to finally rid himself of some greedy and pestering kidnapping plan participant who had already been paid once, why the almighty and powerful Lindbergh (as you seem to see him, as required) was unable to raise the money by the evening of March 12. Why would he mess around at the apparent eleventh hour after placing the ad? Furthermore, what on earth is a guy like CJ, whom you seem to believe has already been once rewarded handsomely, looking for a mundane job while this “secondary payment” is being orchestrated? $#!+ happens in the real world, as I'm sure it must in alternate universes. You and I may never truly understand the true dynamics and interplay of factors large and small on both sides, that contributed to the ultimate ransom money exchange for a note of instruction on April 2. Instead you lay out a serving of bafflegab as you have above, that only spins more heads than attempts to enlighten them. Even though I believe I know what’s coming, what is the more logical explanation I’m clearly avoiding?

LOL. You're killing me Joe!

Everything I have mentioned demands consideration and a rational response. You aren't doing either but instead choose to ignore them.  On top of that, I get a new adjective as if that invalidates these points you've evaded. Hint: It doesn't.  While its funny (see the LOL above), it cannot serve any real purpose other than to distract from your inability to fit them into your narrative.

The other point that you are making just isn't true (see below).  

What evidence do you have that the originally assembled ransom payment $50,000 had its serial numbers recorded?  Clearly that would not have been before Elmer Irey's entry into the case with his demand that all serial numbers must be recorded.  Why would they bother putting together a duplicate $50,000 and go through the recording of serial numbers again, if they'd already done that?  Was it because Irey also wanted the payment to be primarily gold notes?  Do you know the original makeup of the first $50,000?

And I'd still like to hear from the horse's mouth, the more logical explanation I'm clearly avoiding. The only song and dance I'm seeing here is out of your camp.