Remembering Isidor Fisch

[Michael]

Sept 27, 2020 10:41:05 GMT -5 aaron said:

I was questioning whether this "Erna" may actually have been Hermine, formerly Pefferly, who had been married to Lawrence Puffery, also a friend of Henry Uhlig and Isidor Fisch.  

I don't think so but I can check if you are interested.

[aaron]

I would appreciate it, Michael.   Henry Uhlig, friend of Isidor Fisch married a woman whose name was Erna.  
Could this woman be the same person who was married to Ellis?  

[Michael]

Sept 27, 2020 10:41:05 GMT -5 aaron said:

Sanborn said that Erna worked as a governess for wealthy families, and that she had friends in New York and New Jersey whom she frequently visited. I was questioning whether this "Erna" may actually have been Hermine, formerly Pefferly, who had been married to Lawrence Puffery, also a friend of Henry Uhlig and Isidor Fisch.  

I combed through my Fisch files last night and didn't find anything to indicate Hermina was called "Erna" or "Irna." When the FBI interviewed the Pefferlys, it was learned that Hermina had been friends with Fisch for a very long time and was present with Mohdieck when Fisch got his citizenship. Her husband, Lawrence, claimed that he met Fisch thru his wife in 1926. Hermina's father, Alois Motzer, loaned Fisch $1000 for one of his money making ideas concerning showing daytime movies in parks. Hermina claimed Fisch gave him collateral for this loan involving real estate on Long Island.

Sept 28, 2020 3:02:39 GMT -5 aaron said:

I would appreciate it, Michael.   Henry Uhlig, friend of Isidor Fisch married a woman whose name was Erna.  Could this woman be the same person who was married to Ellis?  

I don't have anything on her in my "Uhlig" file unfortunately.


Update: I reached out to a friend of mine and found out that Uhlig was married to Erna M. Foster on August 7, 1937. We also know that Ellis L Sanborn married Erma M Cahn on April 16, 1927 because the marriage certificate is on ancestry.com.

[aaron]

Thank you so much,  Michael, for the interesting information.  

[metje]

Isidor Fisch had several friends who might have been involved in the kidnapping plot. One of these was John Mohrdieck who was named
along with Fisch in Richard Hauptmann's petition to the New Jersey Court of Pardons in December of 1935.  Morhdieck reported his height as
5'7" when he entered the US in 1923,  but his weight was listed as only 126 lb. Also, he reported his weight as 126 lb. so he was decidedly
underweight. Also, he completed only the 4th grade in Germany, the equivalent of elementary school, quite unusual as BRH had not only
completed the 8th grade (middle school) but also continued with vocational training in carpentry. Perhaps it is true that dead men tell
no tales, but my curiosity was piqued, and I did some research into the possibilities of Mohrdieck's health syndome and then compared
these with Condon's description of the man he met in the Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries. Please note that I am not a member
of any medical profession, and the details given here can be verified by research as I was able to find it.  Also, I cannot comment on
any possibilities regarding Mohrdieck's internal problems with heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. but concentrate only on his physical
appearance.

     In 1977 the Lateral Meningocele Syndrome, a neurological dysfunction and skeletal disorder was first described. I included an
attachment on an earlier post of Mohrdieck along with the police sketches, and also someone posted a photo of "John's Birthday Party"
recently, so these can be found easily for sake of comparison.  The LMS syndrome indicates that the face is triangular with a broad
forehead and small jaw.  Condon described the face of the go-between he met as "triangular with the lower angle cut off."  The
upper lip is "tented" as is shown in Mohrdieck's photo and in the police sketches as Condon and Perrone described the person with
whom they met.  The eyebrows are highly arched, as demonstrated in the Mohrdieck's photos. The outside corners of the eyes
droop downward and are usually squinted.  Mohrdieck's eyes are squinty as is shown in one police sketch.  Also Condon reported
in his conversation with the go-between spoke throughout with his eyes squinted. The philtrum (area between nose and mouth)
is strongly creased.  The cheeks (maxilla) are flat, however, and this does not correspond with Condon's description although 
the one police sketch does not show the maxilla as high.   (To be Continued on another post)

[metje]

Because of Mohrdieck's weight problem, I researched the Marfan syndrome which deals with skeletal disorders and problems
with the connective tissue.  Most patients with Marfan's are quite tall although there may be some exceptions because of 
spinal problems.  The connective tissue problem also relates to the squinty eyes since the eyelids cannot remain open for
long.  In the photo titled "John's Birthday Party," however, Mohrdieck, while short have his arm extended completely around
the width of the man standing to his left, indicating a long arm, and the fingers of his hand strongly resemble those of
a person with Marfan's syndrome.  One can compare these fingers with those of Henry Uhlig who is standing to the right of
Fisch. The shoulders of those with Marfan can be stooped, as is clearly the case with Mohrdieck's shoulders in all photos.
Condon commented on the droopy shoulders.  Hauptmann's shoulders were not stooped.

John Mohrdieck did gain some weight before Fisch left for Germany in December of 1933. I will try to post a picture of
Uhlig, Mohrdieck, and Fisch which was taken much later than the birthday party photo together with a likeness of
Ernie Brinkert.  Condon once identified Brinkert as the man now called Cemetery John through police photos, but
when Condon actually came face to face with Brinkert, he said that he was not the man.  Brinkert was 5'4'' inches
tall, much to short to be CJ.  However, there is a resemblance between Mohrdieck and Brinkert in the face.

Hauptmann's claim that Fisch and Mohrdieck were involved in the kidnapping and extortion crimes should have
been investigated.  Gov. Hoffman had asked him to name his accomplices.  Hauptmann does not admit any
involvement, but it is possible that the three of them were conspirators in the planning of the kidnapping.
There may have been others also.

[metje]

 Interesting that Knickerbocker Avenue was a connecting highway between the respective residence of Alois Motzer (Myrtle Ave. Queens) and the
Mohrdieck family (Bushwick Ave. Brooklyn), a distance of about one and one-half miles.  Both families lent money to Isidor to "invest."  The
ill-fated Knickerbocker Pie Company may have been funded from the generosity of Motzer and Mohrdieck and given the name of this
connecting avenue to represent the dual investments.

[aaron]

  Recently I read through the posts on the board relating to Mary Cerrita and the Temple of Divine Power. Karl Henkel lived near this
temple, and possibly Isidor Fisch did also. Immediately following the kidnapping of the Lindbergh child, Mary claimed to have some 
knowledge to pass on to officials, so she was invited to meet with them, along with Peter Birratella, then her business partner. The two
were mediums with the "ability" to connect the living with deceased person and conduct conversation between the two parties.  Most
requests involve a connection with a deceased member of the family, but there are other types of requests. I have known some who
attended spiritualistic types of meetings hope to get advice on investing money. That may have been Isidor's intention, to connect
with a deceased business person hoping to improve his financial situation, as the fur business and his pie business were in dire
straits.  So what individual might he request?  He may have admired the success and skills of Paul Warburg who passed away in
New York on Jan. 24,1932.  Warburg was from a distinguished family in Hamburg; he came to the US and was naturalized, then
becoming a member of Congress and a supporter of the Federal Reserve Board.  He was a member of the Board for many years.
He was also Jewish, attending the Temple Emanu-El in New York. Such a man would be a perfect role model for Fisch.
    So let's say Fisch came to the temple to establish communication with Warburg.  Mary and Peter were not that skilled in business
although the owned one, but they had to provide answers,  through the spirit of course.  They may have suggested the kidnapping
of the Lindbergh child as a way for Fisch to get money--and almost immediately.  Charles Lindbergh's father was also a member of Congress
during this time.  He and Warburg had their disagreements. At one time the elder Lindbergh brought charges of impeachment
against Warburg.  If Peter and Mary knew this, and any research would corroborate the conflict between them, the suggestion
of the kidnapping could be construed as justifiable retaliation against the Lindberghs.
    Fisch would continue to visit the temple after the snatch to discuss his problems and progress with "Paul" with Mary and
Peter participating and listening in on the discussion. They would then be in possession of a number of facts, even ahead of their
occurrence, as a result.  Isidor needed to have made some acquaintances with members of the Morrow and Lindbergh households
and received assistance from some of his own circle of friends.  Isidor was an observant Jew and so should have avoided this
encounter, but he was away from his family and he may have been desperate enough to seek this kind of help.

[metje]

  Interesting scenario,  but how would this account for Cerrito's knowledge of the message to be received
from Breckinridge (which is erroneously spelled Breckinbridge)?

[aaron]

 A chain of communication would have been developed among the members of the kidnapping gang so that they would be immediately aware
of the actions being taken by the Lindberghs.  This means that informants in the Lindbergh and Morrow houses would be involved. The
informant in the Lindbergh household most likely was Betty Gow.  She was close to the action and would make a call (not directly to
Isidor Fisch since that could be easily traced) but to someone in the Morrow house. This would not be suspicious.  So Gow makes a
call to Violet Sharp who has access in Hopewell to public telephones.  Sharp then could call Fisch and relay recent activity to him.
Hauptmann did not have a telephone, so he is out of the loop. Fisch goes regularly to the Temple of Divine Power to check with his
"spirit" and discuss the progress and problems of the situation with him, through the medium of course, who then obtains information
during the seance.  Through this chain Mary Cerrita and Peter Biritella have some actual detail of the kidnapping, perhaps some of
which they misinterpret but enough for us to recognize that they had some connection to what was actually going on.  While today
most of us think of spiritualism as hocus-pocus or attempts at scamming the naive, at one time the medium was taken seriously,
especially by the English and American upper classes.  Queen Victoria, Mrs. Abraham Lincoln, and Arthur Conan Doyle (author of
the Sherlock Holmes stories) were spiritualists and visited mediums regularly. In his essay on the University of Michigan, Arthur
Miller mentions a noted professor who held seances with his students.  He communicated with historic persons such as Sir Thomas
More and Martin Luther. This happened at the University of Michigan in the 1940s. Later the professor asked the medium how he
 should invest his money. The medium, who had no knowledge of investments, responded that he should place it on a certain horse! 
The professor did so and lost his money when the horse failed to show. This news item was publicized in "The Ann Arbor News" about
1957 when the professor sued the medium for his money.  i mention this story (which is true as I had a class with the same
professor but only after the dean put a stop to the seances held on campus).  My point here is that consulting with spirits in order
to get information to improve one's financial condition was not a rare occurrence, and the answers received from the mediums
who were ignorant of real information regarding business, sometimes gave bizarre responses to their clients' questions. If Fisch
visited Peter and Mary at their temple, he very likely gave them more real detail than he received.  It's also possible that they
suggested the idea of kidnapping the Lindbergh child to him through the spirit, of course, with whom he requested a connection.

[metje]

That's quite a story?  But what makes you think that it was Isidor Fisch who visited the spiritualist temple?
Perhaps it was someone else in the kidnapping gang who consulted Mary Cerrita and inadvertently gave
her information.

[aaron]

It's possible that another member of the kidnapping gang was a client of the Temple of Divine Power. Someone gave Mary and
Peter information before the fact, and some of the information was correct (eg. the date of the next ransom letter, the initials
of John F. Condon).  Personally I do not believe in spiritism and so conclude that someone from the gang was giving details
most probably in a seance with one of them, probably Mary with Peter listening.  If the client was not Isidor Fisch, then another
member of the gang or someone related to the gang who knew what was going on and visited the temple, not to give out
information but to get assistance from the spirit world to avoid problems.  If the client was not Fisch, then he/she would most
likely be a person connected to him in some way.  The Henkels lived near the temple, and some of Fisch's friends lived at or visited
at that address.  The most likely candidate then would be Augusta Hile, mother of Karl Henkel.  She introduced Hauptmann and
Fisch of January of 1932 (though the two of them may have already known each other), and Augusta may have had some 
reasons of her own to make that introduction. She lent Fisch over four thousand dollars when he started the Knickerbocker
Pie Company, and she stated that Fisch never repaid her.  Son Karl drove the pie truck for a while.  Augusta was a guest of
the Hauptmanns when they hosted a party on Jan. 1, 1933 in celebration of the New Year, held nine months following the
kidnapping.  A photo was taken of the group at the party.  Augusta is sitting to the left of Anna Hauptmann, a little behind
the hostess.  So Augusta Hile is a possible client of Cerrita, but that means she is a member of the gang and an important one.

[metje]

OK,  I see your point and admit there could be some possibility in your observations. It did not occur to me before that Augusta Hile
could be involved in this crime.  She was called as a witness at the Hauptmann trial, but I do not recall that anyone cast any
suspicion on her previously.  Someone else on the board could have information regarding this suggestion.  Although it was claimed
that Augusta introduced Fisch and Hauptmann in January of 1932 (you hinted that she knew both of these guys and wanted Fisch
to know of Hauptmann's carpenter skills) the two might have known one another previously. The photo of "John's Birthday Party"
that was posted on this thread some time ago shows Fisch with some of his friends at the celebration. On the back of the photo
claimed to be taken from the Hauptmann family album was an inscription "Taken at John's Birthday Party  Brooklyn N.Y. March 1931"
The "n" in Brooklyn is missing, so the writer may have been in some hurry.  John Mohrdieck reached the age of 25 in March of
1931.  He is in the photo standing next to Fisch. The inscription is said to be written in Fisch's handwriting.  I am not expert in
handwriting analysis but suggest that inscription suggests that Fisch arranged for the party and the photos that were taken.
He would then make copies and send them to all who attended with the inscription written on the back. This would indicate
that Richard Hauptmann was present at this party; he is standing in the back row on the right-hand side.  I have now compared
this picture with others of Richard Hauptmann with a wide open smile.  These did not occur frequently. On his trip to California
in 1931 there is a picture of Hauptmann on a beach with his wife and sister in which he flashes the same open smile.  True,
the birthday picture is dark and shows all with dark hair.  Uhlig, however, was a red-head, and others who had lighter hair
appear to be brunets.  It does not seem likely that Anna Hauptmann would find one of Fisch's pictures and place it in her own
family album.  That does not make sense.  So, it is possible that Augusta Hile reintroduced Fisch and Hauptmann in 1932
because Hauptmann's skills were important to the kidnappers in their planning, but that does not exclude the possibility that
the two knew one another previously. The birthday photo indicates otherwise.

[metje]

One more point.  If the kidnapping gang through Ms. Hile arranged an "introduction" for Fisch and Hauptmann in January of 1932,
then Hauptmann would have only a month or five weeks to build the ladder.  As a member of the board previously observed,
"time wasn't on his side."  Given the little time for the assignment, Hauptmann was not able to do a really professional job and
may have been assured that the ladder was intended to be used for only one time.  He may have had to finish the job on the
afternoon of Feb. 29 and took some short-cuts, including looking for a piece of wood in his own attic. 

[aaron]

Let's take a closer examination of the situation with Peter and Mary and compare it with some of the details given in the statement
of Arthur Jones, fellow inmate of Richard Hauptmann.  The baby, Mary said, was taken to a house north of Hopewell, which would
probably be near Blawenburg. The kidnappers have hired two women to take care of the baby; the house is described in Mary's
statement.  She says there is an armed guard though her description does not match any of Isidor's or Hauptmann's friends that
I can find.  He was probably a hired thug, armed and would shoot without conscience.  The situation was to last perhaps two or
three days, but the ransom money is not forthcoming and there was a lot of publicity along with the investigation.  The baby was
sick to begin with, though Anne said he was somewhat better on Tuesday, the day of the kidnapping.  Nevertheless, in the new
situation, the child's condition is deteriorating, and the kidnappers are beginning to fear the worst.  They want to receive the
ransom and return the child quickly before he dies in their possession. The ransom note delivered on March 5 indicates that
they need more money to pay for the extra care, which may be true as the care (another thug?) for the child increases every day.
Peter and Mary are sent to Princeton to give their statements; someone pays for their tickets. This action could indicate the need
for prompt action--which does not happen.  The child dies, Jones says from pneumonia, which is possible. The body is then
taken south by one of the thugs to the spot on Rose mt.This could have happened without passing the Lindbergh's home in Hopewell.
The group does not own a shovel and at this point would not want to purchase one. By the time Condon meets with the member
of the kidnapping gang in St. Woodlawn (March 12), the child is dead, and the group then knows they are in serious trouble.
BTW I just checked the autopsy report. The child's heart and liver were still intact, but the lungs were gone.

[aaron]

I recently discovered a photo of Ben Lupica, witness for the defense at the Hauptmann trial in Flemington.  Lucia saw the kidnapper, or
one of them at about five o'clock in a car with ladder sections near the Lindberghs' estate.  The car was a dark blue or black Dodge
sedan, according to Lupica.  He saw the driver and could give a partial description but would not identify Hauptmann in court. The
driver was apparently waiting for someone else to arrive.  He stared at Lupica and at one point stopped his car.  The photo of
Ben Lupica bears some resemblance to Isidor Fisch, so it occurred to me that the driver of the Dodge sedan might have briefly
mistaken Lupica for Fisch. Lupica had short dark hair and wide eyes that characterized Fisch also.  My question is whether anyone
on the board knows what kind of car Ben Lupica was driving that night.   

[Basheeba]

</attachment>             Here,  I hope, is a photo of Ben Lupica.  The driver of the blue or black
                                   sedan may have been waiting for Isidor Fisch and thought initially that

                                   Ben Lupica was Isidor.  Sorry I had trouble trying to move this photo
    
                                   onto the board.</attachment></attachment>

[aaron]

[aaron]

You may need to scroll down the page to locate the photo.  
Does anyone on the board know what kind of car Lupica was
driving that evening?  It might resemble the car that the
driver with the ladder was expecting.

[Michael]

Nov 5, 2020 15:50:23 GMT -5 aaron said:

You may need to scroll down the page to locate the photo.  
Does anyone on the board know what kind of car Lupica was
driving that evening?  It might resemble the car that the
driver with the ladder was expecting.

According to a police report dated May 1933, Lupica had a Ford Roadster.  I assume this was the same car he was driving on March 1, 1932 but I so far I haven’t been able to find any proof of it.  (It might be mentioned in a newspaper article or in a place i haven’t thought to check). 

[aaron]

Thank you very much,  Michael.  i suspected that it might be a Ford coupe.
Would you happen to know what color it was?  Or could you direct me to
a source that mentions the car's description?  

[Michael]

Nov 5, 2020 20:54:51 GMT -5 aaron said:

Thank you very much,  Michael.  i suspected that it might be a Ford coupe.
Would you happen to know what color it was?  Or could you direct me toa source that mentions the car's description?  

Attachment Deleted

[aaron]

Again,  thank you Michael for all your help with my questions. I have read the information given by yourself
on an earlier thread but have not yet been able to access the sources you refer to, perhaps a problem with
my computer which will be checked out shortly.  It occurred to me that the driver of the dark sedan with the
ladders was expected to meet with another party in that area and thought that Lupica was that party.
As you wrote, "The car slowly approaches (Lupica), cuts into his lane, and stops." Lupica stopped at his
mail box and paused to read his mail.  At some point the other driver got a good look at him and recognized
that he was not the accomplice he was expecting to meet there. Lupica bears a slight resemblance to Isidor
Fisch, so it occurred to me that Fisch could have been the man expected. I am not going to get into a
discussion of the identity of the driver of the sedan with the ladders.  In his statement to the FBI Henry
Ellerson claimed to see a green Ford coupe near the Lindbergh estate about 3 p.m. as he was leaving
the residence.  Ellerson himself owned a green Ford coupe which was burned in an accident in the Palisades
about the time the baby's body was found in May. There is not much detail concerning Ellerson's activities
after 3 p.m. He shows up about 8 p.m. in a speakeasy already much under the influence, however, so
he does have witnesses and an alibi. He could not have been at the kidnapping scene when the crime occurred, 
but he could have let someone else borrow his car that evening, and that someone had the time to drive
to Hopewell and meet with the driver who carried the ladders. Ellerson was reported to have a considerable
sum of money in gold notes at the speakeasy in Fort Lee. My suggestion is that Ellerson lent his
car to Fisch and perhaps someone else. He was rewarded for this at the time. I do not know if Fisch was able
to drive a car, and he probably would not have arrived at Hopewell alone. Ellerson's  earlier comment about a
green Ford coupe at the Lindbergh's residence could well have been a cover for himself in case anyone
saw his car there later in the evening. Thanks again.  I have appreciated being a member of the board and
have learned a lot from the observations of other members.

[Wayne]

Aaron,

I think whenever anyone first takes a look at this case, we all (myself included) instantaneously want Isidor Fisch to be guilty of something.  The actual kidnapping, the extortion, CJ's lookout.  Something nefarious.

But after you take a deep-dive into the case, the documents show that Fisch was definitely not at Highfields on the night of March 1, 1932.

Attorney Albert B. Kurtz testified under oath that Fisch was at his office on March 1, 1932 from 10:00 AM until 4:30 PM.  There were 2 other people there - Erich Schaefer and Mortimer B. Steindler.

Fisch had other confirmed meetings after 4:30, but at 8:30 PM until 12:30 AM, Henry Jung testified that Fisch was at his house.  His wife and a Mr. Levenson were there.

Fisch was not a Highfields on March 1, 1932.  

And after all the research I've done with a lot of great researchers, the earliest we can confirm that Fisch met Hauptmann was early August 1932.

Everything else is speculation.

[Michael]

Nov 6, 2020 13:40:32 GMT -5 Wayne said:

And after all the research I've done with a lot of great researchers, the earliest we can confirm that Fisch met Hauptmann was early August 1932. Everything else is speculation.

Just to clear this up Kurtz didn't testify. He was supposed to but never did. As far as he goes, I've written a lot about him in V3 so there's some information to consider there.

I continue to believe Fisch was involved in the ransom laundering. The bottom line is that "if" Fisch was where these people claim he was at the time alleged then he could not have been in Hopewell. Also, if Hauptmann did not meet him until the summer then he couldn't have been involved in the extortion. There's no evidence that Hauptmann had known him earlier - only speculation. Of course speculation isn't a bad thing, but the idea is to develop it through information that supports it. Fisch did involve himself in shady/illegal behavior. That Fisch kept certain acquaintances separate and apart from one another is also a fact. There are also several verifiable instances where Hauptmann feigned ignorance about certain things or lied. However, pretending not to know someone at all then suddenly being an obvious business partner only months later doesn't make any sense to me.

[Wayne]

Nov 7, 2020 10:12:16 GMT -5 Michael said:

Nov 6, 2020 13:40:32 GMT -5 Wayne said:

And after all the research I've done with a lot of great researchers, the earliest we can confirm that Fisch met Hauptmann was early August 1932. Everything else is speculation.

Just to clear this up Kurtz didn't testify. He was supposed to but never did. As far as he goes, I've written a lot about him in V3 so there's some information to consider there.

I continue to believe Fisch was involved in the ransom laundering. The bottom line is that "if" Fisch was where these people claim he was at the time alleged then he could not have been in Hopewell. Also, if Hauptmann did not meet him until the summer then he couldn't have been involved in the extortion. There's no evidence that Hauptmann had known him earlier - only speculation. Of course speculation isn't a bad thing, but the idea is to develop it through information that supports it. Fisch did involve himself in shady/illegal behavior. That Fisch kept certain acquaintances separate and apart from one another is also a fact. There are also several verifiable instances where Hauptmann feigned ignorance about certain things or lied. However, pretending not to know someone at all then suddenly being an obvious business partner only months later doesn't make any sense to me.

Hi Michael,

You're right and that's what I meant to say, that Kurtz was supposed to testify but was not called to.  His detailed statement, pre-trial, was taken and that was what I was referring to.  If anyone wants to read Kurtz's statement, let me know and I will try to post it here.

Also, I'll re-read the Fisch chapters in Vol 2 and Vol 3.

Like I said, I wish we could nail Fisch to the money laundering, but I'm just not there yet.  But I can be convinced with facts and documents.



 

[Michael]

Nov 7, 2020 19:10:54 GMT -5 Wayne said:

You're right and that's what I meant to say, that Kurtz was supposed to testify but was not called to.  His detailed statement, pre-trial, was taken and that was what I was referring to.  If anyone wants to read Kurtz's statement, let me know and I will try to post it here. Also, I'll re-read the Fisch chapters in Vol 2 and Vol 3. Like I said, I wish we could nail Fisch to the money laundering, but I'm just not there yet.  But I can be convinced with facts and documents.

My books are meant to reveal the facts for consideration. This includes old facts, new facts, revealing that many old "facts" weren't facts at all, and different angles by which to view it all. If you don't find anything in them compelling enough to change your mind I'm not really trying to convince anyone to see it any differently ... in fact I'd rather not bear that responsibility. However, at times I will express my personal position like I did here. For me, just seeing that Special Agent Frank considered it as a possibility demonstrated to me that it should be considered. Next, Fisch wasn't a Saint. He just wasn't. Having died he was a convenient scapegoat for Hauptmann, however, that doesn't mean everything about him was a lie. Take Bruckman as another example. Reilly offered him a way to lie but he refused. Looking at it through this lens, is there any doubt about his information that concerned Fisch or Schleser? For me there isn't. So clearly Fisch was willing to engage in something at least similar that was very illegal. Does it mean he's laundering ransom? No. But once considering he's a business partner with the guy who history concludes was holding the entire 50K then its irresistible not to strongly suspect Fisch knew about it. That's why Wilentz was trying to deceive the jury about that business partnership in the first place. It's almost like suggesting that the "Fisch Story" was true and that Hauptmann never checked the box to see what was in it. Next, we also have proof Fisch was creating fake fur invoices as well. Either that was done to steal or dare I say "launder?" ... pick your poison. So I see this position that Fisch was completely "innocent" and I reject that.

[luf12]

Oct 27, 2020 13:44:42 GMT -5 aaron said:

  Recently I read through the posts on the board relating to Mary Cerrita and the Temple of Divine Power. Karl Henkel lived near this
temple, and possibly Isidor Fisch did also. Immediately following the kidnapping of the Lindbergh child, Mary claimed to have some 
knowledge to pass on to officials, so she was invited to meet with them, along with Peter Birratella, then her business partner. The two
were mediums with the "ability" to connect the living with deceased person and conduct conversation between the two parties.  Most
requests involve a connection with a deceased member of the family, but there are other types of requests. I have known some who
attended spiritualistic types of meetings hope to get advice on investing money. That may have been Isidor's intention, to connect
with a deceased business person hoping to improve his financial situation, as the fur business and his pie business were in dire
straits.  So what individual might he request?  He may have admired the success and skills of Paul Warburg who passed away in
New York on Jan. 24,1932.  Warburg was from a distinguished family in Hamburg; he came to the US and was naturalized, then
becoming a member of Congress and a supporter of the Federal Reserve Board.  He was a member of the Board for many years.
He was also Jewish, attending the Temple Emanu-El in New York. Such a man would be a perfect role model for Fisch.
    So let's say Fisch came to the temple to establish communication with Warburg.  Mary and Peter were not that skilled in business
although the owned one, but they had to provide answers,  through the spirit of course.  They may have suggested the kidnapping
of the Lindbergh child as a way for Fisch to get money--and almost immediately.  Charles Lindbergh's father was also a member of Congress
during this time.  He and Warburg had their disagreements. At one time the elder Lindbergh brought charges of impeachment
against Warburg.  If Peter and Mary knew this, and any research would corroborate the conflict between them, the suggestion
of the kidnapping could be construed as justifiable retaliation against the Lindberghs.
    Fisch would continue to visit the temple after the snatch to discuss his problems and progress with "Paul" with Mary and
Peter participating and listening in on the discussion. They would then be in possession of a number of facts, even ahead of their
occurrence, as a result.  Isidor needed to have made some acquaintances with members of the Morrow and Lindbergh households
and received assistance from some of his own circle of friends.  Isidor was an observant Jew and so should have avoided this
encounter, but he was away from his family and he may have been desperate enough to seek this kind of help.

Aaron, Marlis suggested that Paul Warburg's son, James is the mastermind behind the kidnapping. It is a well known fact that James's governess is the twin sister of the Morrow Dressmaker.

[Wayne]

FYI, here is the statement that lists at least 6 witnesses willing to testify that Fisch was not in New Jersey on March 1, 1932:


Kurtz Jung Levenson etc.pdf (797.85 KB)

[aaron]

       During the latter 1920's and then especially in the years after the depression began in 1929, kidnapping became a business
because it was easy money.  The kidnapping of the Lindbergh child received much publicity because of the parents' fame and the
admiration for Charles as a hero.  America does not have a royal family, but the Lindberghs became elevated almost to the
position of royalty, much as John Kennedy and the Kennedy clan would be admired later in the century.  So there would be
a core of a few individuals, perhaps two or three in the kidnapping gang who would scout an area and decide whether to 
proceed in the kidnapping of a certain child.  This took time and a considerable amount of planning.  In the Lindbergh case,
the area chosen for the home in Hopewell was remote and unguarded.  It was an ideal place for a kidnapping even though
the nursery was located on the second floor.  Secondary individuals than had to be chosen by the kidnap core--to assist
in the kidnapping, to care for the child, and especially to house the child and attendants in the usually few days before
the ransom money was paid.  In the Lindbergh kidnap, cooperation had to be sought from members of the household
staff;  this much is evident.  These persons would be paid something, but not a large percentage of the ransom money
as that was designated for those in the established gang.  Also, those who provided housing and care for the child would
also receive something but again not a large percentage.  The group would seek housing in a remote area with women
caring for the child and a guard probably armed to frighten away anyone approaching the house.  Comments have been
made on the board regarding the first ransom note addressed to "Dear Sir"; this very likely was more or less a form letter
that was initially sent to the parent or guardian so the salutation is impersonal.  The note warns not to notify the police.
This warning also would be part of the routine as the parent would not want to risk any harm that might come to the child.
Usually the ransom money would be paid in a matter of a few days, and the gang would then make arrangements for the
child and parent to be reunited in some way.  The "signature" would differ from case to case. One member of the board
pointed out that the Lindbergh ransom notes signature resembled a card's design, that used in gambling games.  Other
such designs might also have been chosen in other cases.  Unfortunately, Lindbergh called for investigators before opening
the letter containing the ransom note (the kidnappers complained about this) and could not provide the ransom money
in a few days as the kidnappers had hoped.  Add to this the child's poor health. The kidnappers had no way of providing
help for his condition which probably deteriorated following the snatch--if he did survive for that long. All this would indicate 
that the kidnapping was probably not intended as revenge or retaliation or out of envy for Lindbergh's success.  It was a matter of 
business that went awry, and once the child was dead, the gang knew that what they had done would be considered a capital
crime, a situation that they had not encountered or anticipated in prior snatches.  That does not mean, however, that
they would have abandoned the kidnapping business.  So there are some questions that now should be considered. Was the
Lindbergh first ransom note similar to others received by parents or guardians whose kids were taken?  Were there other
"signatures" used on these notes?  If so, what were they and how were they derived (their origins)? If we can answer these 
questions, we may learn a good deal more about the individuals involved in the core gang of kidnappers.