metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 27, 2020 10:06:18 GMT -5
Isidor's family were observant Jews. He would not have returned to Germany "for Christmas" in 1933. He may have wanted
to be with his family during Hanukkah which would have been celebrated from December 13 through December 20 in 1933.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 28, 2020 5:54:40 GMT -5
We know that Isidor Fisch and Hauptmann were partners, supposedly in the fur business which could not have been
doing well during the depression era. It's possible that the "fur business" became a front for Fisch, a cover-up for the
business he was actually doing and Hauptmann joined him in this. It occurred to me that the Knickerbocker Pie Co.
which folded may have been a front for selling something else that happened to be illegal. Knickerbocker beer comes
to mind. It was made in New York in the German community and became very popular. Possibly Fisch was really
selling alcohol instead of pie. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was repealed in 1933. The
partnership of Fisch and Hauptmann may well have actually been an illegal business from the outset, and that
business could have involved kidnapping. The Lindbergh snatch may not have been their first attempt nor
their last.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 28, 2020 6:09:47 GMT -5
Someone just pointed out to me that Charles Schlosser and Isidor Fisch were co-owners of the Knickerbocker Pie co.
business, so it's possible that Charles and Isidor went into the kidnapping business after this failure and then drew
Hauptmann into the action later.
|
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 28, 2020 10:14:16 GMT -5
No, I don't think that Isidor would have returned to Germany for Hanukkah. Hanukkah is a relatively minor festival on the Jewish calendar, although it has been enhanced by American Jews in recent decades primarily because it occurs close to the Christians' Christmas on the calendar. No, there must have been a very pressing matter to cause Fisch to return to Germany at a time when the Nazis had already seized power and Jewish life in Germany was seriously hampered by government and government influenced persecution. Could he have gone there to spend his final days, knowing that he would be soon dead from tuberculosis? Or did he seek to distance himself from Hauptmann? Or perhaps for a combination of reasons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 28, 2020 11:19:10 GMT -5
According to Hauptmann, Fisch " wanted to return to his brother in Germany at Christmas time, because he wanted to make arrangement for importing and exporting furs." (See TDC V2, page 578). The reference to Xmas is Hauptmann's, but the point of the whole trip was to expand the fur business. As far as the Pie company goes, they were definitely making pies. Certainly something else could have been going on but we have to remember that Bruckman was a defense witness and told Hauptmann's lawyers everything he knew. (See TDC V2, pages 598-602). I am quite sure if he knew of anything of the sort he would have revealed this and we'd know about it. As a matter of interest, here's one of the Marshall Sale's notice that was nailed to the door: Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 29, 2020 18:42:50 GMT -5
According to Hauptmann, Fisch " wanted to return to his brother in Germany at Christmas time, because he wanted to make arrangement for importing and exporting furs." (See TDC V2, page 578). The reference to Xmas is Hauptmann's, but the point of the whole trip was to expand the fur business. As far as the Pie company goes, they were definitely making pies. Certainly something else could have been going on but we have to remember that Bruckman was a defense witness and told Hauptmann's lawyers everything he knew. (See TDC V2, pages 598-602). I am quite sure if he knew of anything of the sort he would have revealed this and we'd know about it. As a matter of interest, here's one of the Marshall Sale's notice that was nailed to the door: View AttachmentWhile he was in Germany, Isidor Fisch also undertook efforts to get his father out of Nazi Germany and into Palestine. I remember reading that in one of the case files or in a letter (perhaps one of Henry Uhlig's). When Isidor's sister Henna Fisch's apartment was searched by the police in Leipzig, they did indeed find among Isidor's papers an envelope addressed to Dr. Abraham Tulin, New York (City). Dr. Tulin was a prominent member of the World Zionist Organization, along with other notables such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Harvard Professor Felix Frankfurter. Sadly, as has been pointed out before on this board, Isidor's entire family was murdered at Auschwitz. At least Isidor tried. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2020 10:30:31 GMT -5
Sadly, as has been pointed out before on this board, Isidor's entire family was murdered at Auschwitz. At least Isidor tried. It is really sad. Especially after reading they had hoped to return and settle in the US.  |
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 8, 2020 11:24:37 GMT -5
Interesting article on Fisch's family posted by Michael.
Note that brother Pincus is quoted as saying "he came home to die." If true, this is a plausible explanation for Isidor's trip to Nazi Germany in Dec. 1933, but also the most benign explanation Obviously, it exonerates Isidor from any culpability in the Lindbergh kidnap plot.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 8, 2020 13:05:16 GMT -5
Interesting article on Fisch's family posted by Michael. Note that brother Pincus is quoted as saying "he came home to die." If true, this is a plausible explanation for Isidor's trip to Nazi Germany in Dec. 1933, but also the most benign explanation Obviously, it exonerates Isidor from any culpability in the Lindbergh kidnap plot. Notwithstanding whatever bias his own family may have felt inclined to impart during the time he was back home in Leipzig for a little over three months before his death, I find it difficult not to consider Isidor Fisch, while in America, a lively and active part of any post-kidnapping money laundering activity with his close friend and business partner Richard Hauptmann whom we know for certain was involved in the kidnapping before it began and who accounted for a majority of the ransom money. Sorry for the run-on sentence.. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 8, 2020 13:17:09 GMT -5
Yes, it was Hauptmann who stated that Fisch wanted to go home "for Christmas" to be with his family. Since the
family happened to be orthodox Jews, they would not have celebrated Christmas. Now it is possible that Fisch
did want to go home to Leipzig to celebrate Hanukkah, or it is likewise possible that Hauptmann manufactured
his statement that Fisch wanted to "celebrate Christmas" with his family because he did not want to reveal the
real reason Fisch was returning to Leipzig at that time and forgot that Jews do not celebrate Christmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 8, 2020 14:00:56 GMT -5
We need to remember that Hauptmann lied to investigators about the ransom money when he was first taken and his house
initially search. Lying is done for a reason; it's called "consciousness of guilt." Obviously there was something he did not want the
investigators to know so he was trying to cover up. After April of 1932 he did not work, and after June of that year his wife did
not work either. So what did they live on? Hauptmann is not a financial genius, and it's hardly possible that he is making
money on a stock market that crashed in October of 1929 and is still not doing well. There is a world-wide depression going on.
Business is bad, the fur business is not doing well, and Fisch's pie company is a disaster.
So it is likely that Hauptmann is spending ransom money in 1933 by passing out the small bills at local businesses.
Not clever, certainly, but when merchants take their receipts to the bank at the end of the day, they
would hardly remember which customer passed what money over the counter. Many ransom bills were passed in the area
where Hauptmann lived; these were traced at that time and after the fact. So Hauptmann spends some of the money in his area,
and when Fisch leaves for Germany for whatever reason, he also gives Hauptmann some or all of his portion to hold for him until he gets
back to the US. When Hauptmann learns of the death of Fisch, he does not tell the family of the money he is holding, but combines
the money with his own and buries them in his garage. He must know that this is hot money but chooses not to launder it
himself, probably because he would lose a significant percentage. So he decides to spend it in small amounts. This is not
the thinking of a clever man. He has hot money, he gets caught, and he lies about it. It would be a short time, or so he thinks,
that he will be safely back in Germany, just as Fisch removed himself from a difficult situation here in the US. So in the
face of a terrible depression in Germany and devaluation of the Reich mark, he was going to expand his fur business there?
Yes, Hitler made economic promises to the Germans who believed in him. It's not likely that Fisch would have trusted
this propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 10, 2020 10:59:25 GMT -5
Even if Hauptmann had shared some of his ransom money with Fisch at some point and Fisch returned it to him before he departed for Germany, Hauptmann's Fisch story is bogus. Hauptmann had 15 of the original money packages prepared by JP Morgan in his garage. For the most part, he had left them in the original packaging order and wrapped 14 of them in newspaper. The serial numbers of all of these bills are known. Some of the packages had one or more bills missing. From one of the packages, all $10 gold certificates, 13 bills were missing, of which 12 were discovered and one spent but not discovered. Six of the discovered bills were spent and discovered on specific dates in late December 1933 and early 1934. Fisch had left for Germany on December 6, 1933. It could therefore not have been Isidor who spent them. It had to have been Hauptmann. Which means that Hauptmann either had this ransom money in his garage all along (which I believe), or, if Isidor had brought him the money, Hauptmann had accessed the alleged shoebox in December 1933, not on a rainy day in August 1934, as he told the police. He can't have it both ways. It's either or. The Fisch story, therefore, doesn't hold any water. Here is the proof: Discovery Location of Bill
Serial Number of $10 GC Spending / Discovery Date of Bill
Bronx County Trust Co., Bronx A 9462 4481 A 17 January 1934 Bank of Manhattan, Williamsbridge, Bronx A 3440 8398 A 11 January 1934 Williamsbridge Post Office, Bronx A 7646 4756 A 29 December 1933 (discovered January 6, 1934 ) Chase National Bank of Harlem A 1372 7291 A 28 December 1933 (discovered January 5, 1934 Bank of NY & Trust Co., Manhattan A 7298 4929 A 26 December 1933 Joseph Giordano, produce, 368 Gun Hill Road, Bronx A 7631 5177 A 28 December 1933 (discovered February 13, 1934 ) Ten of the 13 bills spent and/or discovered from this particular package were located in direct sequence within the package. As Rab had pointed out on this board many years ago, Hauptmann took a break from spending ransom money for a few months (at least from this package), but started up again in August 1934: with $10 GC A 7587 3171 A, discovered at the Bank of Sicily Trust Co. in Manhattan on August 20, 1934. Rab had noted that this bill was in direct sequence with the bill spent on January 17, 1934. The remaining five discovered bills from this package were spent and discovered in late August and throughout September 1934. We know Hauptmann admitted to spending them. (Images of Hauptmann's newspaper wrappers to follow.) ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 10, 2020 11:03:56 GMT -5
I don't know why my table came out so jumbled. Sorry! I'll resubmit it shortly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 10, 2020 11:15:03 GMT -5
I don't know why my table came out so jumbled. Sorry! I'll resubmit it shortly. If it comes out jumbled again, I'll have to ask Michael for help. Discovery Location of Bill
Serial Number of $10 GC
Spending and Discovery Date of Bill
Bronx County Trust Co., Bronx A 9462 4481 A 17 January '34 Bank of Manhattan, Williamsbridge, Bronx A 3440 8398 A 11 January '34 Williamsbridge Post Office, Bronx A 7646 4756 A 29 December '33 , discovered January 6, 1934 Chase National Bank of Harlem A 1372 7291 A 28 December '33 , discovered January 5, 1934 Bank of NY & Trust Co., Manhattan A 7298 4929 A 26 December '33 Joseph Giordano, 368 Gun Hill Road, Bronx A 7631 5177 A 28 December '33 , discovered February 13, 1934 |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2020 11:15:23 GMT -5
Note that brother Pincus is quoted as saying "he came home to die." If true, this is a plausible explanation for Isidor's trip to Nazi Germany in Dec. 1933, but also the most benign explanation Obviously, it exonerates Isidor from any culpability in the Lindbergh kidnap plot. What they said here was little different than what they said in Germany. The whole interaction with Hauptmann was about Fisch's money. As a reminder, he also bought a round trip ticket so if he planned on dying we'd have to figure out the reason for that. Notwithstanding whatever bias his own family may have felt inclined to impart during the time he was back home in Leipzig for a little over three months before his death, I find it difficult not to consider Isidor Fisch, while in America, a lively and active part of any post-kidnapping money laundering activity with his close friend and business partner Richard Hauptmann whom we know for certain was involved in the kidnapping before it began and who accounted for a majority of the ransom money. Sorry for the run-on sentence.. I mostly agree. Fisch wasn't stupid by any stretch. This partnership between Hauptmann and Fisch seems to have been formed to assist with the laundering in some way. We know Fisch was buying furs AND creating fake invoices for purchases that were never made. So any idea that Fisch was merely a penniless guy sleeping on park benches and completely "innocent" goes up in smoke here. I can't imagine that he doesn't know there's ransom money involved which is also supported by the many people who claimed he was trying to unload it or seen with gold notes. Having said that, I do not believe he was in Hopewell climbing the ladder either but the involvement I suspect is a different aspect of the crime altogether. Yes, it was Hauptmann who stated that Fisch wanted to go home "for Christmas" to be with his family. Since the family happened to be orthodox Jews, they would not have celebrated Christmas. Now it is possible that Fisch did want to go home to Leipzig to celebrate Hanukkah, or it is likewise possible that Hauptmann manufactured his statement that Fisch wanted to "celebrate Christmas" with his family because he did not want to reveal the real reason Fisch was returning to Leipzig at that time and forgot that Jews do not celebrate Christmas. Based on what Hauptmann actually said, I do not believe it has anything at all to do with religion or the holidays. Hauptmann celebrated Christmas and were merely using this as a point of reference. As an example imagine a crime was committed and police interviewed neighbors. They eventually find one who claimed that sometime during Ramadan he saw a suspicious character hanging around. Does that mean this "character" was Muslim? No, it means the witness is and nothing more. Of course he could be but that's not what the witness is saying. . It would be a short time, or so he thinks, that he will be safely back in Germany, just as Fisch removed himself from a difficult situation here in the US. So in the face of a terrible depression in Germany and devaluation of the Reich mark, he was going to expand his fur business there? Yes, Hitler made economic promises to the Germans who believed in him. It's not likely that Fisch would have trusted this propaganda. From what I understand from the material, it was to expand the business. I don't know if the idea was to bring in Pinkus or because of fur prices, etc. Anyway, I've considered it may have had to do with laundering as well. Obviously, when it comes to both Hauptmann & Fisch there's always more going on besides the obvious so I try to look past what might be considered a "given" and include other possibilities as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2020 11:36:00 GMT -5
Discovery Location of Bill / Serial Number of $10 GC / Spending and Discovery Date of Bill
Bronx County Trust Co., Bronx / A 9462 4481 A / 17 January '34
Bank of Manhattan, Williamsbridge, Bronx / A 3440 8398 A / 11 January '34
Williamsbridge Post Office, Bronx / A 7646 4756 A / 29 December '33, discovered January 6, 1934
Chase National Bank of Harlem / A 1372 7291 A / 28 December '33, discovered January 5, 1934
Bank of NY & Trust Co., Manhattan / A 7298 4929 A / 26 December '33
Joseph Giordano, 368 Gun Hill Road, Bronx / A 7631 5177 A / 28 December '33, discovered February 13, 1934
Mbg also asked me to share these photos of the newspaper wrapping used by Hauptmann for some of the Ransom Money: imgur.com/0Eql5gQimgur.com/cOMGifDimgur.com/a/qyTOaLh |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 10, 2020 11:45:32 GMT -5
I don't know why my table came out so jumbled. Sorry! I'll resubmit it shortly. Excellent work Mbg! Does this help:  |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 10, 2020 12:53:24 GMT -5
Great information Mbg, and I believe the sequential pattern of the ransom bill spending starting in early 1934 was originally noted in the FBI Report. I have to think this detail which would have been as damning as just about anything else brought against Hauptmann, was somehow not conveyed to the prosecution, or for some reason they decided not to use it. Hauptmann's claim as well, that the sopping wet gold notes he "discovered" in his closet, had to be separated and dried in a wire basket in his garage, pretty much blows up on it's own accord due to the likelihood that the sequence would then have been altered appreciably. Not to mention the bulking value of the bills themselves would have increased, indicating their having previously been wet to the extent he claimed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 10, 2020 13:28:52 GMT -5
Great information Mbg, and I believe the sequential pattern of the ransom bill spending starting in early 1934 was originally noted in the FBI Report. I have to think this detail which would have been as damning as just about anything else brought against Hauptmann, was somehow not conveyed to the prosecution, or for some reason they decided not to use it. Hauptmann's claim as well, that the sopping wet gold notes he "discovered" in his closet, had to be separated and dried in a wire basket in his garage, pretty much blows up on it's own accord due to the likelihood that the sequence would then have been altered appreciably. Not to mention the bulking value of the bills themselves would have increased, indicating their having previously been wet to the extent he claimed. Yes, Joe, there is a report to that effect. Rab or Michael may even have posted it on the board back then. (I have it somewhere in my files and will look for it.) A lot was not brought out at the trial. The fact that BRH was spending money in late December '33 from the very package he claimed Fisch had given him on December 2 should have been used to dispel the Fisch story, since Hauptmann admitted spending bills from that particular package in August and September 1934. There was no excuse for that omission. All the evidence was available to the prosecution: the handwritten ledger listing the ransom money in the order in which the individual packages were prepared, etc. It is unfortunate that so many people still believe the Fisch story. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 11, 2020 8:13:10 GMT -5
Great information Mbg, and I believe the sequential pattern of the ransom bill spending starting in early 1934 was originally noted in the FBI Report. I have to think this detail which would have been as damning as just about anything else brought against Hauptmann, was somehow not conveyed to the prosecution, or for some reason they decided not to use it. Hauptmann's claim as well, that the sopping wet gold notes he "discovered" in his closet, had to be separated and dried in a wire basket in his garage, pretty much blows up on it's own accord due to the likelihood that the sequence would then have been altered appreciably. Not to mention the bulking value of the bills themselves would have increased, indicating their having previously been wet to the extent he claimed. Yes, Joe, there is a report to that effect. Rab or Michael may even have posted it on the board back then. (I have it somewhere in my files and will look for it.) A lot was not brought out at the trial. The fact that BRH was spending money in late December '33 from the very package he claimed Fisch had given him on December 2 should have been used to dispel the Fisch story, since Hauptmann admitted spending bills from that particular package in August and September 1934. There was no excuse for that omission. All the evidence was available to the prosecution: the handwritten ledger listing the ransom money in the order in which the individual packages were prepared, etc. It is unfortunate that so many people still believe the Fisch story. The pattern of sequential ransom note spending from late December of 1933 through August and September of 1934, represents another strong indicator there is a certain amount of truth behind the Fisch story. Of course, only in the sense of Fisch having entrusted Hauptmann with the gold certificates he had been unable to launder before he left for Germany on Dec. 9, 1933, and Hauptmann of course, having known full well what they were. And this documented, and perhaps too-close-for-comfort connection might well have been fully recognized by the prosecution, who wanted nothing to do with Hauptmann's business partner having had any feasible connection with the illicit funds and by extension, the kidnapping. Assuming they were aware of this very telling sequential pattern, what other reason would there have been for them not to pursue this avenue to explode the Hauptmanns' plant repotting story on a rainy afternoon in August 1934? And yes Mbg, it is nice to know the Fisch story is rightly consigned to the trash can of this case, at least here on this discussion board. Hauptmann's unbelievable account of how he tore the box open with the butt end of a broom handle that defied the laws of Newtonian physics, was a great start! |
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 11, 2020 15:53:11 GMT -5
Here are several observation re: the ransom money. First, Elmer Irey, chief investigator officer for the IRS, recorded all
the serial number of the ransom bills, but these were NOT in consecutive order; this was done because the kidnappers would
then infer that the numbers had been recorded. Actually, records were made, and this took some time, resulting in over
50 pages which banks were to check after they had closed for the day. The FBI kept a list of the bills that surfaced and
the locality in which they appeared. One bill was said to have turned up in Chicago, and another in England.
Second, the ransom money began to turn up almost immediately following the second meeting of John Condon with a
member of the kidnapping gang. Investigators soon discovered that the bills were difficult to trace since the merchants
who owned the businesses could not usually recall their clients or remember who passed what.Some of the bills had
changed hands several times before they were checked.
Third, the bills appeared in many different areas. Two important clusters were found in the North Bronx, but an equal
number also showed up in the South Bronx, again making any original source difficult to determine. As a result, no one
could have decided that the bills were spent in any kind of consecutive order. True, the smaller bills seemed to appear first,
so it was inferred that the kidnapper would spend more of the larger bills later on.
Finally, a good percentage of the ransom bills was never discovered. At the time of Hauptmann's apprehension, he
was in possession of a little over $14,000. He had spent more of the money in the preceding months, but that did not
account for an amount approaching the total. Someone using the alias of J.J. Faulkner exchanged nearly $3000. of the
money at a federal bank.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult to make any realistic conclusion concerning the ransom money.
The money missing, or at least unaccounted for, may have been exchanged without detection, laundered, or
buried "in Summit."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 11, 2020 21:54:20 GMT -5
Yes, Joe, there is a report to that effect. Rab or Michael may even have posted it on the board back then. (I have it somewhere in my files and will look for it.) A lot was not brought out at the trial. The fact that BRH was spending money in late December '33 from the very package he claimed Fisch had given him on December 2 should have been used to dispel the Fisch story, since Hauptmann admitted spending bills from that particular package in August and September 1934. There was no excuse for that omission. All the evidence was available to the prosecution: the handwritten ledger listing the ransom money in the order in which the individual packages were prepared, etc. It is unfortunate that so many people still believe the Fisch story. The pattern of sequential ransom note spending from late December of 1933 through August and September of 1934, represents another strong indicator there is a certain amount of truth behind the Fisch story. Of course, only in the sense of Fisch having entrusted Hauptmann with the gold certificates he had been unable to launder before he left for Germany on Dec. 9, 1933, and Hauptmann of course, having known full well what they were. And this documented, and perhaps too-close-for-comfort connection might well have been fully recognized by the prosecution, who wanted nothing to do with Hauptmann's business partner having had any feasible connection with the illicit funds and by extension, the kidnapping. Assuming they were aware of this very telling sequential pattern, what other reason would there have been for them not to pursue this avenue to explode the Hauptmanns' plant repotting story on a rainy afternoon in August 1934? And yes Mbg, it is nice to know the Fisch story is rightly consigned to the trash can of this case, at least here on this discussion board. Hauptmann's unbelievable account of how he tore the box open with the butt end of a broom handle that defied the laws of Newtonian physics, was a great start! Exactly! Fisch wasn't on trial here. If he did launder Lindbergh ransom money, it was Hauptmann who hired him for the job. At the trial, Hauptmann said Fisch's shoebox contained two – maybe four – packages of ransom money. He wasn't quite sure. Hauptmann did say there was a lot of empty space in the box. Had there been all of the 15 packages of ransom money found in his garage in it, the box would have split at the seams. Hauptmann still had to account for the many individually wrapped packages that filled his large shellac can. When and how did he obtain those? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 12, 2020 10:13:10 GMT -5
Mbg, do you have the page number references from Hauptmann's trial testimony where he cites the detail about having "discovered" the shoebox in August 1934? The logistics of Hauptmann’s claim to finding $14,600+ certainly need to be considered to determine whether it was possible to fit this amount of money into an average shoebox. I know I did some calculations on this way back based on the gold certificate denominations found in his garage, but they’re buried somewhere I can’t locate now. From the third ransom note, in which the writer agrees to Condon being the go-between, he also specifies the “packet” dimensions of 14” (L) X 6” (H) X 7” (D). He’s apparently calculated these dimensions to hold the bumped-up amount of $70,000, even though it’s apparent he underestimated the size required to fit the extra $20,000, as later discovered by Lindbergh and Condon. Based on this photo of the duplicate ransom box constructed, and if these dimensions are true to the original box, indicates an interior length of a bit over 13”, a height of about 5-1/2” and I’m guessing a depth of about 6”. Knowing that the original $50,000 actually fit into this box size, it appears to me the above amount Hauptmann claimed to have found in the closet shoebox, (if it was an average-sized shoebox of about 14" X 5" X 8") should have fit comfortably with some room to spare.  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2020 10:53:27 GMT -5
In V2 on page 568 in TDC I mention Agent Frank's observations concerning Hauptmann's ledger. What we see is a figure for $17,000. Once Fisch is given $2,000 for his trip, a "5" is written over the seven subtracting that two grand. From my perspective, this does seem to show Fisch as having a "credit" or "allotment" of $15,000 and there's no way I believe Hauptmann was completely duped into believing an amount that large existed when it did not. When it comes to laundering the ransom I believe there were many hands involved. Mueller for one. We know he was trying to buy the bar and claimed the money was coming from his rich uncle. We also know he gave the same story about why Hauptmann had gold notes after his arrest. This, to me, seemed like a coordinated narrative to explain it away. Next, what is the purpose of this partnership with Fisch? What benefit would it deliver to Hauptmann, and are we to expect Fisch did not to know the source of this money? Say what you will about him, its undeniable that when it came to money he was a hustler, savvy, and street-wise. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 12, 2020 11:12:43 GMT -5
In V2 on page 568 in TDC I mention Agent Frank's observations concerning Hauptmann's ledger. What we see is a figure for $17,000. Once Fisch is given $2,000 for his trip, a "5" is written over the seven subtracting that two grand. From my perspective, this does seem to show Fisch as having a "credit" or "allotment" of $15,000 and there's no way I believe Hauptmann was completely duped into believing an amount that large existed when it did not. When it comes to laundering the ransom I believe there were many hands involved. Mueller for one. We know he was trying to buy the bar and claimed the money was coming from his rich uncle. We also know he gave the same story about why Hauptmann had gold notes after his arrest. This, to me, seemed like a coordinated narrative to explain it away. Next, what is the purpose of this partnership with Fisch? What benefit would it deliver to Hauptmann, and are we to expect Fisch did not to know the source of this money? Say what you will about him, its undeniable that when it came to money he was a hustler, savvy, and street-wise. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Fisch, Michael and for me there's just way too much smoke here for there not to have been fire under Fisch's feet. I'm just delving back into the garage hoard logistics I previously posted. Do you have the denomination(s) discovered and their breakdown? I know there were no 5's in it and all of the notes were gold certificates, but don't recall if there were any 20's other than the recovered 10's. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 12, 2020 11:29:24 GMT -5
Mbg, do you have the page number references from Hauptmann's trial testimony where he cites the detail about having "discovered" the shoebox in August 1934? The logistics of Hauptmann’s claim to finding $14,600+ certainly need to be considered to determine whether it was possible to fit this amount of money into an average shoebox. I know I did some calculations on this way back based on the gold certificate denominations found in his garage, but they’re buried somewhere I can’t locate now. From the third ransom note, in which the writer agrees to Condon being the go-between, he also specifies the “packet” dimensions of 14” (L) X 6” (H) X 7” (D). He’s apparently calculated these dimensions to hold the bumped-up amount of $70,000, even though it’s apparent he underestimated the size required to fit the extra $20,000, as later discovered by Lindbergh and Condon. Based on this photo of the duplicate ransom box constructed, and if these dimensions are true to the original box, indicates an interior length of a bit over 13”, a height of about 5-1/2” and I’m guessing a depth of about 6”. Knowing that the original $50,000 actually fit into this box size, it appears to me the above amount Hauptmann claimed to have found in the closet shoebox, (if it was an average-sized shoebox of about 14" X 5" X 8") should have fit comfortably with some room to spare. View AttachmentHere is the exchange between Wilentz and Hauptmann at the trial. Hauptmann's description of the money in the shoebox shows that it could not have been the entire $14,600 found in the garage (too much empty space); yet BRH claimed that all of that money came from Fisch. He is clearly contradicting himself at the trial. Trial Transcripts, State vs. Hauptmann, Volume 2, Kindle Edition (covering Kindle Locations 13450 – 13474): Wilentz interrogating Hauptmann: “Q. And how many months had this paper or cardboard shoe box been in that closet before you disturbed it? A. Since I get it. Q. Yes. And you got it in December, 1933? A. Well, it was the last Sunday before he left. Q. When did he leave? A. I can’t remember exactly the day. Q. What month? I don’t ask you exactly. A. In December. Q. In December. And it was, you say, in August, 1934? A. Yes. Q. Before you disturbed the box? A. Yes. Q. Now, what was the condition of the box, what was the change in the box from the time you put it up there and the time you took it down? A. She was practical falling apart. Q. Now, describe to the jury without any leading from me, please, the condition of the money in the box as you saw it for the first time. A. Well, I—when I saw the money I took the box down and took it in a pail, because the water was running round my, down my arm in the sleeves, took it in the pail and carry it down to the garage. Q. Well, was the money flat, rolled up, divided, or tell us more about the condition of it. A. It was, it was bundle. Q. You will have to tell us. A. My recollection— Q. Describe the bundle. A. I guess it was four bundles in there. Q. Four bundles? A. Dem, dem bundles was mostly mesh up, but must be wrapped in paper, not in thick paper, in thin wrapping paper, brown paper, and there was newspaper in the box too, I guess they wasn’t filled up at all; it was empty space, there was some newspaper; I didn’t look on the newspaper at all. I took the money out, squeezed the water out, put it in the basket, loosened it a little bit, put it in the basket, and the rest, I mean the empty box and the paper I put in the garbage. Q. Now, when you took the money down into the garage—is this the—Well, what did you take it down in? A. In the bail (pail). Q. A barrel? A. No, not a barrel, a pail. Q. A pail? A. Yes. Q. What kind of a pail, tin pail, wooden pail? A. Tin—no tin pail. Q. Now, you got down into the garage—this was in August, 1934, wasn’t it? A. That is right.” |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 12, 2020 11:47:04 GMT -5
In V2 on page 568 in TDC I mention Agent Frank's observations concerning Hauptmann's ledger. What we see is a figure for $17,000. Once Fisch is given $2,000 for his trip, a "5" is written over the seven subtracting that two grand. From my perspective, this does seem to show Fisch as having a "credit" or "allotment" of $15,000 and there's no way I believe Hauptmann was completely duped into believing an amount that large existed when it did not. When it comes to laundering the ransom I believe there were many hands involved. Mueller for one. We know he was trying to buy the bar and claimed the money was coming from his rich uncle. We also know he gave the same story about why Hauptmann had gold notes after his arrest. This, to me, seemed like a coordinated narrative to explain it away. Next, what is the purpose of this partnership with Fisch? What benefit would it deliver to Hauptmann, and are we to expect Fisch did not to know the source of this money? Say what you will about him, its undeniable that when it came to money he was a hustler, savvy, and street-wise. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Fisch, Michael and for me there's just way too much smoke here for there not to have been fire under Fisch's feet. I'm just delving back into the garage hoard logistics I previously posted. Do you have the denomination(s) discovered and their breakdown? I know there were no 5's in it and all of the notes were gold certificates, but don't recall if there were any 20's other than the recovered 10's. To save you the time to look for it, Michael: Here is the answer to Joe's question. Hauptmann had $4,720 in $10 gold certificates in his garage (i.e. 472 bills), and $9,880 in $20 gold certificates (i.e. 494 bills), which included the $20 GC found on him when he was arrested. Total amount: $14,600; total number of bills: 966. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 12, 2020 16:47:29 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of Fisch, Michael and for me there's just way too much smoke here for there not to have been fire under Fisch's feet. I'm just delving back into the garage hoard logistics I previously posted. Do you have the denomination(s) discovered and their breakdown? I know there were no 5's in it and all of the notes were gold certificates, but don't recall if there were any 20's other than the recovered 10's. To save you the time to look for it, Michael: Here is the answer to Joe's question. Hauptmann had $4,720 in $10 gold certificates in his garage (i.e. 472 bills), and $9,880 in $20 gold certificates (i.e. 494 bills), which included the $20 GC found on him when he was arrested. Total amount: $14,600; total number of bills: 966. A slight correction: There was $4,740 in tens found in the garage (474 bills) and $9,860 in twenties (493 bills), bringing the total number of bills to 967 and the overall amount to $14,600, not including the $20 on Hauptmann's person. Sorry about the confusion. |
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Dec 13, 2020 5:56:50 GMT -5
Hauptmann's account is very interesting, indeed. He creates problems for himself though because he
tends to offer different versions by way of explanation so it is difficult to know what actually happened.
Note that he says "bail" instead of "pail"; this confusion of the b and the p also occurred when "subway"
was spelled "supway" in one of the ransom notes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 13, 2020 9:05:35 GMT -5
To save you the time to look for it, Michael: Here is the answer to Joe's question. Hauptmann had $4,720 in $10 gold certificates in his garage (i.e. 472 bills), and $9,880 in $20 gold certificates (i.e. 494 bills), which included the $20 GC found on him when he was arrested. Total amount: $14,600; total number of bills: 966. A slight correction: There was $4,740 in tens found in the garage (474 bills) and $9,860 in twenties (493 bills), bringing the total number of bills to 967 and the overall amount to $14,600, not including the $20 on Hauptmann's person. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks Mbg, for the trial reference and denominations breakdown. Regarding the “4 bundles” as Hauptmann testified to, I'd speculate here that he was probably referring to 4 stacks of bills as they would have appeared to him at first glance when he removed the shoebox lid. The attached photo shows 4 stacks of money (unknown number of packages) in a typical safe deposit box, and I show this only to demonstrate how the alleged “4 bundles” of money would probably have been oriented similarly in an average shoebox to make best use of the actual box dimensions. This safe deposit box is not as high or perhaps as deep as an average shoebox, but it’s fairly close in terms of its length.  Based on the dimensions of US paper currency of the time, (small bill size 6.14” X 2.61” initiated with the 1928 series) and when the ransom note writer specified the box dimensions to Lindbergh, he was clearly accounting for an arrangement which would have seen 5 stacks of bills oriented in similar fashion in the box. Regarding the 15 packages of money found in the garage, would these not have been individually repackaged by Hauptmann (or perhaps even Fisch?) for the purpose of more easily managing their spending? In any case, these packages which were demonstrated by authorities in the old newsreels, appear to me to have been much slimmer and more loosely packed than the very beefy and compressed packages originally assembled by the Federal Reserve. |
|
