Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 14:23:06 GMT -5
Michael, you've been researching this case for far too long without a break, and I don't believe anyone will be too upset if you cap your series at Volume No. 4. Inspiration rarely comes to those whose nose is worn down from the grindstone. You need some Michael time, my friend.  I could stop now Bro. I'm sure there's nothing in the 60+ pages I've written (so far) on Nosovitsky that you'd have any interest in - right? The only reason I write is to provide information to those who want to see new material. And if I don't do it then it will never see the light of day (of that I am quite certain). Have you read the Doherty book yet? Please do. It will teach you a valuable lesson, and once finished you'll be begging me for another volume! Just know that I purchased it thinking I was actually going to learn something new. Sorry Michael, I should have said, "cap the series for now.." And yes, I am anxiously awaiting to hear what you have to add about our buddy Jacob. Thanks also for the reminder about the Doherty book which Sue also recently mentioned. I really like the look of it and just ordered it. In the meantime, take a walk in the woods from time to time..  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2020 10:37:39 GMT -5
Found this one reference intriguing - I managed to find a number of photos which contain Fisch's lapel pin - but nothing of the sort of quality needed to get a very good look at it. I did attempt to match it roughly against a large number of Masonic pins - without any success. Any ideas on this one? Good observation. I never noticed or paid any attention to this pin. I don't recall anything about it in the files either (or at least don't remember seeing it). I'll do a little digging to see if I can add anything further. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2020 10:45:13 GMT -5
Sorry Michael, I should have said, "cap the series for now.." And yes, I am anxiously awaiting to hear what you have to add about our buddy Jacob. Thanks also for the reminder about the Doherty book which Sue also recently mentioned. I really like the look of it and just ordered it. In the meantime, take a walk in the woods from time to time.. Still working on this chapter concerning Nosovitsky. I know you get bored easily so it might not suit you, but it will include everything one needs to know. I had to throw in a lot of backstory in order to compliment the other information about him. My mention of that book was not an endorsement so don't get mad at me. I do look forward to your comments about it though. And what's this "woods" comment all about? What do you got against long walks on the beach? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2020 18:01:04 GMT -5
Sorry Michael, I should have said, "cap the series for now.." And yes, I am anxiously awaiting to hear what you have to add about our buddy Jacob. Thanks also for the reminder about the Doherty book which Sue also recently mentioned. I really like the look of it and just ordered it. In the meantime, take a walk in the woods from time to time.. Still working on this chapter concerning Nosovitsky. I know you get bored easily so it might not suit you, but it will include everything one needs to know. I had to throw in a lot of backstory in order to compliment the other information about him. My mention of that book was not an endorsement so don't get mad at me. I do look forward to your comments about it though. And what's this "woods" comment all about? What do you got against long walks on the beach? I only get bored by bogus revelation, as I've implied in another thread. And the beach bores me too.. too flat and too much the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2020 11:45:50 GMT -5
Found this one reference intriguing - I managed to find a number of photos which contain Fisch's lapel pin - but nothing of the sort of quality needed to get a very good look at it. I did attempt to match it roughly against a large number of Masonic pins - without any success. Any ideas on this one? I didn't find anything. My guess is that it's related to the Chrzanower Society which I'm certain you've already considered. I've also been searching for a clearer picture but haven't really found one. There might be some better ones at the NJSP Archives but God only knows when that will reopen. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Pefferly on Jan 27, 2021 9:14:43 GMT -5
Laurence Pefferly was my Father and that is not him in the posted piocture
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Pefferly on Jan 27, 2021 9:36:23 GMT -5
metje, is this the photo you are referring to: If so, Hauptmann is not in that picture. As Mbg said in that post, the man who was identified as Hauptmann in the picture is not Hauptmann. In my opinion, I think the mislabeled man may be Karl Henkel. In the top row on the left we see Henry Uhlig with his arm around Isidor Fisch. I do not know the identities of the other men in the photo. Perhaps one of them could be named John, who knows. In the statements given to the authorities by Karl and Gerta Henkel, they claimed they did not meet Hauptmann until July of 1932. They said that they introduced Hauptmann to Isidor Fisch in either July or August 1932. Hauptmann claimed under cross examination by Wilentz in his Flemington Court testimony that he met Fisch either in March or April 1932 after the kidnapping happened. Gerta Henkel knew Fisch in Leipzig before she ever came to America. Karl Henkel met Fisch when he (Karl) came to America in 1926. You are right, Amy. The photo had to have come from the papers left by Fisch with Hauptmann for safekeeping. The handwriting in the photo is unmistakably Isidor's, and the date an location (March '31, Brooklyn) shed light on John the Birthday Boy: He was John (Johann) Mohrdieck, one of Isidor's best friends, born March 12, 1906, in Germany, and living at 1419 Bushwick Ave., Brooklyn, according to the 1930 census. John had even signed Isidor's Petition for Citizenship as a witness back in 1926, citing the same address. None of Isidor's many other friends were named John. The Hauptmanns never lived in Brooklyn. My guess is that one of the other men in the photo is Lawrence Pefferly (formerly Lorenz Pfefferle), whose wife Hermine also signed Isidor's petition. Lawrence Pefferly was my Father and he is not in the picture that was posted. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Jan 27, 2021 12:41:40 GMT -5
Laurence Pefferly was my Father and that is not him in the posted piocture Thank you for responding, Greg Pefferly. To be clear: The Laurence R. Pefferly who was friends with Isidor Fisch was born in 1903. I assume he was your Grandfather, and your Father was named after him. My apologies if I'm wrong. We'll just have to keep searching to identify the other people in that beautiful photo. |
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Pefferly on Jan 27, 2021 15:04:13 GMT -5
Laurence Pefferly was my Father and that is not him in the posted piocture Thank you for responding, Greg Pefferly. To be clear: The Laurence R. Pefferly who was friends with Isidor Fisch was born in 1903. I assume he was your Grandfather, and your Father was named after him. My apologies if I'm wrong. We'll just have to keep searching to identify the other people in that beautiful photo. My apologies, I was looking at the first photo on page one of this thread which does not look like my Father. Being a bit taken aback at this surprising information, I searched further and found a clearer copy and it is indeed my Father, Lawrence A Pefferly. Looking further into the thread I found the other photos posted and they are all authentic and are of my Father. I am shocked that this relationship was not known to me. Lawrence R Pefferly was my brother. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Jan 27, 2021 15:55:23 GMT -5
Thank you for responding, Greg Pefferly. To be clear: The Laurence R. Pefferly who was friends with Isidor Fisch was born in 1903. I assume he was your Grandfather, and your Father was named after him. My apologies if I'm wrong. We'll just have to keep searching to identify the other people in that beautiful photo. My apologies, I was looking at the first photo on page one of this thread which does not look like my Father. Being a bit taken aback at this surprising information, I searched further and found a clearer copy and it is indeed my Father, Lawrence A Pefferly. Looking further into the thread I found the other photos posted and they are all authentic and are of my Father. I am shocked that this relationship was not known to me. Lawrence R Pefferly was my brother. Now it makes sense, Mr. Pefferly. Thank you for the clarification. I had the middle initial wrong. Your Father and Isidor Fisch were good friends. And please be assured: Isidor Fisch had nothing to do with the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's son. There are several reports in the case files mentioning your Father, which I'm sure Michael will be happy to share with you. Thank you so much for posting on this board. (Many years ago, I saw your Brother's name inscribed on a wall in the Washington Cathedral. It jumped out at me from the thousands of names listed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2021 17:40:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Jan 27, 2021 18:17:50 GMT -5
My apologies, I was looking at the first photo on page one of this thread which does not look like my Father. Being a bit taken aback at this surprising information, I searched further and found a clearer copy and it is indeed my Father, Lawrence A Pefferly. Looking further into the thread I found the other photos posted and they are all authentic and are of my Father. I am shocked that this relationship was not known to me. Lawrence R Pefferly was my brother. Now it makes sense, Mr. Pefferly. Thank you for the clarification. I had the middle initial wrong. Your Father and Isidor Fisch were good friends. And please be assured: Isidor Fisch had nothing to do with the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's son. There are several reports in the case files mentioning your Father, which I'm sure Michael will be happy to share with you. Thank you so much for posting on this board. (Many years ago, I saw your Brother's name inscribed on a wall in the Washington Cathedral. It jumped out at me from the thousands of names listed.) Were you the younger or the older of the two Pefferly brothers from Lawrence A. Pefferly's second marriage? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by gregp66 on Jan 27, 2021 19:44:56 GMT -5
Now it makes sense, Mr. Pefferly. Thank you for the clarification. I had the middle initial wrong. Your Father and Isidor Fisch were good friends. And please be assured: Isidor Fisch had nothing to do with the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's son. There are several reports in the case files mentioning your Father, which I'm sure Michael will be happy to share with you. Thank you so much for posting on this board. (Many years ago, I saw your Brother's name inscribed on a wall in the Washington Cathedral. It jumped out at me from the thousands of names listed.) Were you the younger or the older of the two Pefferly brothers from Lawrence A. Pefferly's second marriage? Just curious. Younger |
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Mar 15, 2021 11:40:12 GMT -5
On page 4 of this thread (Remembering Isidor Fisch) there appears a photo of Fisch with three women, one identified as Katie Maynes.
A man appears inside the car; he is identified as Henry Uhlig. The three women are wearing furs, hats and boas, very likely gifts just
presented them by Isidor the furrier in exchange for some type of service. The man in the car does not resemble Henry Uhlig, however.
Uhlig had small eyes and light eyebrows as indicated in his court pictures where he is definitely identified . He may well have been present
at the event memorialized in the photo. He may even have taken the picture. Fisch would likely want the photo taken as proof that
whatever transaction made that day had actually occurred. Katie may not have wanted to discuss the photo for that reason. The
man at the wheel of the auto resembles John Mohrdieck as the figure has his features. I enlarged the picture to get a better look.
Not much of the car is evident, but what appears resembles a Buick Brougham of about 1928 or 1929. My father owned a 1927
Buick, and this does resemble the parts shown in the photo. Someone with better knowledge of antique cars may be able to
verify the make, model and year. A Buick Brogham was stolen from its owner who lived in New Jersey. It "appeared" near
the Plymouth Apartments on the day following the kidnapping. At that time Duane Baker (Bacon) was still manager of the
Plymouth Apartments. Apparently we do not have the date the photo in question was taken. It would be helpful if someone
could pinpoint that bit of information!
|
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Mar 15, 2021 13:05:49 GMT -5
Actually my father's car was a 1927 Buick. The car in the photo may well be a 1927 or 1928 Master Six Brougham
Buick. The car found near the Plymouth Apartments was a Brougham Buick. Not sure about the date of its production.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Mar 16, 2021 0:50:55 GMT -5
Who would want this photo to be published for all to see? Especially if the occasion was innocent. . . Perhaps
there was an agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Apr 15, 2022 5:55:58 GMT -5
The evidence given by Frank Wilson, of his analysis of Hauptmann's financial affairs, was a total fabrication. He started from the conclusion that Hauptmann was guilty, no doubt having been assured of this by the police, with them making much of Hauptmann's possession of nearly one-third of the ransom money, and worked back from this. A significant defect in his analysis was that it took no account of the very many ransom notes which were passed by the real kidnappers without being identified as ransom notes. Moreover, and much more significantly, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of the very many ransom notes which Hauptmann was alleged to have passed through his stock and other accounts was ever identified as a ransom note, thus proving the analysis was a complete fabrication, which, had this been noticed at the trial, would have proved manufactured evidence was being presented by the prosecution. It is 100% certain that NOT ONE SINGLE RANSOM NOTE was ever put into any of his accounts by Hauptmann, simply because if any had ever been identified as such by an alert teller or clerk, he would have been promptly detained and questioned. He never was, until he started using the gold certificates left with him in the sealed shoebox for safekeeping, by Isidor Fisch, after rediscovering the shoebox in August, 1934, having no idea they were the hottest of hot money, Lindbergh ransom notes. The proof of Hautmann's innocence is found in the answers to two questions: Did Hauptmann know the gold certificates were Lindbergh ransom notes? What do Hauptmann's actions tell us about whether he knew? He was detained after driving into a gas station WITH HIS IDENTITY ON DISPLAY IN THE FORM OF HIS VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE and paying for gas with a $10 gold certificate, which was later identified as a ransom note. Anyone who was guilty and needed to buy gas would sidestep this trap by paying for the gas with some of the change he got from passing a ransom note elsewhere.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2022 7:23:01 GMT -5
The evidence given by Frank Wilson, of his analysis of Hauptmann's financial affairs, was a total fabrication. He started from the conclusion that Hauptmann was guilty, no doubt having been assured of this by the police, with them making much of Hauptmann's possession of nearly one-third of the ransom money, and worked back from this. A significant defect in his analysis was that it took no account of the very many ransom notes which were passed by the real kidnappers without being identified as ransom notes. Moreover, and much more significantly, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of the very many ransom notes which Hauptmann was alleged to have passed through his stock and other accounts was ever identified as a ransom note, thus proving the analysis was a complete fabrication, which, had this been noticed at the trial, would have proved manufactured evidence was being presented by the prosecution. It is 100% certain that NOT ONE SINGLE RANSOM NOTE was ever put into any of his accounts by Hauptmann, simply because if any had ever been identified as such by an alert teller or clerk, he would have been promptly detained and questioned. He never was, until he started using the gold certificates left with him in the sealed shoebox for safekeeping, by Isidor Fisch, after rediscovering the shoebox in August, 1934, having no idea they were the hottest of hot money, Lindbergh ransom notes. The proof of Hautmann's innocence is found in the answers to two questions: Did Hauptmann know the gold certificates were Lindbergh ransom notes? What do Hauptmann's actions tell us about whether he knew? He was detained after driving into a gas station WITH HIS IDENTITY ON DISPLAY IN THE FORM OF HIS VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE and paying for gas with a $10 gold certificate, which was later identified as a ransom note. Anyone who was guilty and needed to buy gas would sidestep this trap by paying for the gas with some of the change he got from passing a ransom note elsewhere. As savvy as Hauptmann was in evading detection for two-and-a-half years, he also wasn't the first criminal to do something stupid enough to get caught. In this case, passing Lindbergh ransom money through financial desperation and incorrectly believing the heat was off, thereby assuming he was relatively safe in doing so. To suggest Hauptmann was innocently oblivious to the source of the gold notes he was spending in August and September of 1934, I believe you'd also have to totally disregard the damning nature of the circumstantial physical evidence that directly connects him to the kidnap ladder and ransom note handwriting, and which generated that same money. |
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 16, 2022 10:42:37 GMT -5
A photo of John Knoll and his wife at a dining table aboard the Manhattan appears in Zorn's book "Cemetery John." Knoll took this cruise back to Germany in the late 1934s about two months after Hauptmann's arrest. My interest in the picture is not with Knoll but with the couple seated at the table behind the Knolls. The man looks very much like John Mohrdick, a close friend of Isidor Fisch who passed in Germany in March earlier that year. The woman with Mohrdick does not look familiar. John was not married at that time. My question is whether anyone would know if the name of John Mohrdieck appeared on passenger list of the Manhattan and is the name of the woman apparently accompanying him is also given. Also attached will be a photo of Mohrdieck for the sake of comparison.   |
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 16, 2022 10:54:38 GMT -5
I just checked the photos. They are quite small on the screen. Sorry, but perhaps someone
would know how to enlarge them so the persons in question can be examined.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 16, 2022 11:23:20 GMT -5
In his last appeal on December of 1935 Hauptmann identifies Isidor Fisch and John Mohrdieck as accomplices in the
Lindbergh baby kidnapping. Fisch died in March of 1934, but Mohrdieck was still alive. The two did not seem to
have had any connections socially or financially. So why would Hauptmann mention, and for the first time,
identify someone living? Someone ecquainted with Mohrdieck may have told Hauptmann about the relationship
between Fisch and Mohrdieck and knew details the investigators had not yet been made aware of.
Who might know and give Hauptmann this information?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 16, 2022 11:33:01 GMT -5
Trying again.  |
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 17, 2022 13:31:01 GMT -5
I do recall now Hauptmann's appeal in December of 1935. It was the only time he mentioned a specific name in connection
with the kidnapping other than the name of Isidor Fisch. Where he got the idea that John Morhdieck was involved along
with Fisch is a mystery. The two were close friends, but as pointed out, Hauptmann was not involved in the circle that
Mohrdieck belonged. One can also recall the photo of John's birthday party. The celebration was of Mohrdieck's
25th birthday, as the date matches the birth date on Mohrdieck's Declaration of Intention when he first entered the US.
So it's likely that someone with information mentioned the name to Hauptmann, probably after the death of Fisch and
in addtion gave him the photo of the birthday party. The photo was found in Hauptmann's family album, and it is
usually assumed that he or Anna found the photo in Isidor's belongings and added it to their own collection. It's
not likely that Anna would take someone's photo not relating to the family and add it to the family album. Probably
the photo was given to Hauptmann and told to hold onto it for a reason, most likely at the same time he was given
the information that the money he had been keeping for Fisch was ransom which Fisch had laundered from the
Lindbergh baby kidnapping. Someone in Fisch's close circle knew certain details and passed these on to BRH,
possibly Gerta Henkel (I'm guessing). Hauptmann did not mention Mohrdieck's name during the trial and did
not identify him until the last possible moment. He may have resisted earlier because of fear of what might
happen to his wife and son, nor did he have much by way of proof. The appeal was a last minute attempt to
save his iife, and it did not work for him, too late to persuade anyone that he was innocent or did not act alone.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 18, 2022 12:35:05 GMT -5
Isidor Fisch did have a circle of close friends although he knew many others outside the circle. Gustav Mancke identified him as
a patron of his restaurant in New Rochelle in early 1932. Mancke stated that Fisch was actually introduced to him by last name,
but he identified others by photos. It's already been pointed out on this board that the individual Mancke said was Ollie Whateley
did not fit the description of Ollie. Mancke said Ollie was tall with thinning blond hair. Ollie was indeed tall with thinning hair,
but his hair was dark and in no way could be called blone. On his passport his hair is described as dark. I sugges that Fisch's
friend who was with him in the restaurant may have been Lorenz Pefferly who was tall and with thinning blond hair. The
Pefferleys were close friends of Fisch and would have provided him with a ride to New Rochelle, Hunter Island, or another
place to the north when Fisch needed to do business. Pefferly's wife Hermine was also a good friend of Fisch, and it's
quite possible that Mancke confused her with Violet Sharp's photo. Violet's passport photo was taken without the heavy
makeup she used in later years. I am not suggesting that the Pefferlys were involved in the kidnapping at all. They would
later move to Washington DC. I am simply agreeing that we need to take a look at Fisch's closest friends, those who
gave him assistance and whom he trusted. Fisch had his own circle, and some (including Uhlig) knew or suspected
his involvement in the kidnapping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 18, 2022 18:52:11 GMT -5
Isidor Fisch did have a circle of close friends although he knew many others outside the circle. Gustav Mancke identified him as a patron of his restaurant in New Rochelle in early 1932. Mancke stated that Fisch was actually introduced to him by last name, but he identified others by photos. It's already been pointed out on this board that the individual Mancke said was Ollie Whateley did not fit the description of Ollie. Mancke said Ollie was tall with thinning blond hair. Ollie was indeed tall with thinning hair, but his hair was dark and in no way could be called blone. On his passport his hair is described as dark. I sugges that Fisch's friend who was with him in the restaurant may have been Lorenz Pefferly who was tall and with thinning blond hair. The Pefferleys were close friends of Fisch and would have provided him with a ride to New Rochelle, Hunter Island, or another place to the north when Fisch needed to do business. Pefferly's wife Hermine was also a good friend of Fisch, and it's quite possible that Mancke confused her with Violet Sharp's photo. Violet's passport photo was taken without the heavy makeup she used in later years. I am not suggesting that the Pefferlys were involved in the kidnapping at all. They would later move to Washington DC. I am simply agreeing that we need to take a look at Fisch's closest friends, those who gave him assistance and whom he trusted. Fisch had his own circle, and some (including Uhlig) knew or suspected his involvement in the kidnapping. Why do you think Fisch wanted to kidnap the Lindbergh baby? |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph f. Condon on Nov 28, 2022 20:16:03 GMT -5
I believe that BRH may have had relatives in the Bronx living on the south end of Mayflower Ave near St. Raymond's cemetery. As I am sure you remember that Jafsie demanded a receipt for the money before he would hand it over to the bag man. When the amount of money was reduced from 70 thousand to 50 thousand, the bagman said he would need permission from his boss. It was a dark night and only one dim streetlight. Neither Jafsie or the bag man had a sheet of paper or a pen. The bag man said he would need a few minutes to obtain the requested receipt and ran off thru the cemetery. At that time Jafsie took out his stopwatch to time the bag man would be gone. The man returned in thirteen minutes with the note. ( reference page 166 of the book Jafsie tells all) If you look at a google map view of the intersection of Tremont Ave and Whittenmore Ave, you can see very easily how someone familiar with the cemetery could run thru the gravestones to the access road, up and across Tremont Ave to a house on Mayflower Ave. The first house is #1206 in which a German family lived, a 73 year old mother Sophie Hugger and her 40 year old son Charles Hugger. The house had an unobstructed view of the area we are talking about and specifically the meeting place in the cemetery. In 1930 the family rented the house valued at 5 thousand dollars, by 1940 I believe they bought the house valued at 5 thousand dollars. That was a large sum of money at that time. Charles was employed as a building watchman.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Nov 29, 2022 3:24:42 GMT -5
Thank you so much for this interesting information. Are you suggesting that Hauptmann may have been related to the
Huggers or knew them? If there was a family relationship, this could be checked out;
|
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 29, 2022 19:15:03 GMT -5
I think a sketch of this area near St. Raymond's Cemetery would be quite useful.
In the 1940s, Carotenuto Monument Yard and Palumbo's monument business were at the intersection of Mayflower Avenue & East Tremont Avenue. Also, there was a service station there run by a guy named Albert J. Farquhar.
Three businesses were on that corner across from St. Raymond's Cemetery.
Can anyone verify that these businesses were in existence in April of 1932?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Nov 30, 2022 7:10:29 GMT -5
I see that Michael addresses the "Collino Monument Works" in the most current volume of Dark Corners.
That business was also across from St. Raymond's Cemetery.
In a court case from 1944, Frank Collino testified that his business had started 23 years ago. That would mean about 1921.
So it existed at the time of Condon's meeting with Cemetery John.
A map of St. Raymond's may show those businesses near Mayflower Avenue.
Additionally, someone wrote a memoir where he describes growing up on Mayflower Avenue in the Bronx in the early 1930s.
The author says there were immigrants living next door on Mayflower Avenue that ran a bootleg business out of the house until the place was raided.
The author seems to say the Mayflower Avenue house had just been built, and that there no sidewalks and not even a road at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2022 13:12:25 GMT -5
A map of St. Raymond's may show those businesses near Mayflower Avenue. This is something that was sketched to the bottom of a Nosovitsky report: imgur.com/a/MVEMutT |
|
