|
Post by mats22 on Aug 25, 2020 4:52:20 GMT -5
I want to hear your opinion about Hauptmann as the guilty kidnapper. Nobody cant say he was not involved because he had the ransom money and he spend a lot of them. But if he wasnt the kidnapper.. who was? If so..was the Fisch story true? Every theory about a partner or other involved has stopped in dead end? Or?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 10:00:28 GMT -5
Welcome to the discussion board, mats22. Thank you for making a post.
Speaking for myself only, I do currently believe that Hauptmann was involved with this crime. I do not believe he was a lone perpetrator. The footprint evidence at the crime scene revealed there was more than one person involved.
I do not see any evidence that Hauptmann was in Hopewell the night of March 1, 1932. There is no evidence that Hauptmann killed the child either, on purpose or by accident.
My own opinion is that this kidnapping was planned in advance from the inside outward, not the other way around. I do think people were selected carefully and that Hauptmann was probably approached to participate before he left on his California trip in 1931.
I do not rule out Fisch's involvement.
I believe Fisch did bring Hauptmann money in a box but I don't buy most of the other details of the Fisch story as related by Hauptmann.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2020 10:25:12 GMT -5
I want to hear your opinion about Hauptmann as the guilty kidnapper. Nobody cant say he was not involved because he had the ransom money and he spend a lot of them. But if he wasnt the kidnapper.. who was? If so..was the Fisch story true? Every theory about a partner or other involved has stopped in dead end? Or? Welcome mats22. The circumstantial physical evidence is inarguable as to the question of whether or not Hauptmann was involved. He was involved up to his neck, but professed total innocence right up to the moment he was electrocuted. Dudley Shoenfeld hit the nail on the head prior to Sept. 19, 1934 when he said the suspect would not confess and LE / the Prosecution soon came to realize this after they nabbed him. Hauptmann wouldn't play ball and they weren't about to waste any more time even after NJSP and NYPD cops tried to beat the truth out of him and failed. Essentially, they just stopped looking for accomplices to the degree demanded by a thorough and competent investigation, in favor of their belief they would be closing the case by trying the clearly-guilty (under the felony murder doctrine) Hauptmann alone, and thereby satiating America's blood-lust for justice. I don't believe there's any real debate about others within Hauptmann's direct circle of influence having been in a position of criminal culpability in this case. There's plenty to discuss there and they just got away with it. The question is who got away with what?
|
|
|
Post by mats22 on Aug 25, 2020 12:09:44 GMT -5
Very good answer! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mats22 on Aug 25, 2020 12:15:47 GMT -5
Thanks! Very nice and friendly group! Happy to be with you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 13:01:34 GMT -5
Welcome! Reading your few sentences, you seem to be familiar with the case. Two of this board's best informed members have responded but I'd like to add my two cents; Have you paid attention to the part of JJ Faulkner letter pertaining to BRH? Aside from all the speculation about it's origin, I think it best describes Hauptmann's true involvement. It claims he paid about a thousand dollars for some hot loot hoping to get rich. Here is the thread with copies of the letter posted by Michael; lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/1017/faulkner-letterOne major thing I am still stuck on is why Hauptmann would give a ransom bill to an attendant at a gas station in a neighborhood where he was known and say he 'had a hundred more at home just like it.' These bills had been passed 'all over town', very carefully, some out of town and not even one good ID to go on. Then Hauptmann gives one to an attendant that has likely put gas in his car several times and brags about having a hundred more like it? He's been that careful, then suddenly he decides to run his mouth like a common drunk? In my opinion it is impossible for Fisch NOT to be involved. He was just as money hungry as BRH and always looking to make a fast buck. Murder? No. Kidnapping in NJ? No. Extortion? Absolutely. Maybe you will be the one to solve this case. Who knows? Good luck!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2020 9:46:37 GMT -5
Welcome! Reading your few sentences, you seem to be familiar with the case. Two of this board's best informed members have responded but I'd like to add my two cents; Have you paid attention to the part of JJ Faulkner letter pertaining to BRH? Aside from all the speculation about it's origin, I think it best describes Hauptmann's true involvement. It claims he paid about a thousand dollars for some hot loot hoping to get rich. Here is the thread with copies of the letter posted by Michael; lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/1017/faulkner-letterOne major thing I am still stuck on is why Hauptmann would give a ransom bill to an attendant at a gas station in a neighborhood where he was known and say he 'had a hundred more at home just like it.' These bills had been passed 'all over town', very carefully, some out of town and not even one good ID to go on. Then Hauptmann gives one to an attendant that has likely put gas in his car several times and brags about having a hundred more like it? He's been that careful, then suddenly he decides to run his mouth like a common drunk? In my opinion it is impossible for Fisch NOT to be involved. He was just as money hungry as BRH and always looking to make a fast buck. Murder? No. Kidnapping in NJ? No. Extortion? Absolutely. Maybe you will be the one to solve this case. Who knows? Good luck! Personally, I believe there is something to the JJ Faulkner letter. Although it doesn't reveal a lot that would only be known to someone involved, (for good reason?) it just strikes me as far too lengthy, personal, articulate and decidedly penitent, to be a hoax. On that last point, the date it was written, January 1, 1936, is traditionally a day of "fresh starts" and so the writer may have been feeling some angst or even guilt towards the plight of Hauptmann, knowing he in some way had a hand in the justice that was being played out. I feel the writer may have been a woman responding to the dictation of a man, who did not want his handwriting part of this record. Based on previous examples, the style of writing here I find to be reminiscent of that of Jacob Nosovitsky, someone I've never been able to let go of as an early participant within the kidnapping plan, but who quickly distanced himself as the plan came to fruition or due to the baby's death. QDE's will point to intentional ink smudging of the signature "JJ Faulkner" as a means of attempting to obscure any dissimilarities between it and the bank deposit slip, but it's clear to me the writer's pen was simply beginning to malfunction and depositing unwanted extra ink within the final sentences of the letter, and that this was purely unintentional. The claim here that Hauptmann was guilty only of greed, strikes me only as an attempt on the part of the writer of the letter to courteously distance him from the handwriting and ladder/wood evidence, which I believe undeniably established Hauptmann's guilt as a primary participant in the kidnapping and extortion. Regarding the brazen nature of Hauptmann's passing of highly-visible gold notes in August and September 1934, I believe he was simply in financial straits and did what he felt he had to do. The newspapers at the time, had responded to law enforcement requests to not report news of discovered ransom money and Hauptmann had lost his money laundering cohort in Fisch earlier that year. What I also believe is a kind of "X" factor in Hauptmann's passing of ransom money for ridiculously-small purchases, (demonstrating in itself he was intentionally passing hot money for good) is the small bottle of pharmaceutical grade ether found in his garage, and which he was using recreationally to give him the added confidence ("Dutch Courage") within this venture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 14:33:44 GMT -5
In my opinion it is impossible for Fisch NOT to be involved. He was just as money hungry as BRH and always looking to make a fast buck. Murder? No. Kidnapping in NJ? No. Extortion? Absolutely. Maybe you will be the one to solve this case. Who knows? Good luck! I also think Fisch should be considered as a player in this crime. Fisch was in need of money for sure. He was always hustling people for money for investing. He owed quite a few people money, some we know about and I will bet there are others we do not know about. In one of the investigative reports done on Fisch and the Knickerbocker Pie Company, report is dated Nov. 8, 1934, Det. Sgt. E.A. Haussling of the NJSP, spoke with one of the Knickerbocker Pie Company truck drivers who was employed there (George O'Brien) while Fisch was there. On the last day the pie company was operating before going bankrupt, Fisch told O'Brien "that the failure of the concern had ruined him." He had borrowed quite a some of money from people who would want to get paid back. Fisch needed money. He would have motive to get involved with a kidnapping. Fisch will always be a person of interest for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 11, 2020 15:02:21 GMT -5
In my opinion it is impossible for Fisch NOT to be involved. He was just as money hungry as BRH and always looking to make a fast buck. Murder? No. Kidnapping in NJ? No. Extortion? Absolutely. Maybe you will be the one to solve this case. Who knows? Good luck! I also think Fisch should be considered as a player in this crime. Fisch was in need of money for sure. He was always hustling people for money for investing. He owed quite a few people money, some we know about and I will bet there are others we do not know about. In one of the investigative reports done on Fisch and the Knickerbocker Pie Company, report is dated Nov. 8, 1934, Det. Sgt. E.A. Haussling of the NJSP, spoke with one of the Knickerbocker Pie Company truck drivers who was employed there (George O'Brien) while Fisch was there. On the last day the pie company was operating before going bankrupt, Fisch told O'Brien "that the failure of the concern had ruined him." He had borrowed quite a some of money from people who would want to get paid back. Fisch needed money. He would have motive to get involved with a kidnapping. Fisch will always be a person of interest for me. Let's not forget, though, that Hauptmann met Fisch through Karl and Gerta Henkel, the couple he had met at Hunters Island in late July 1932. When he visited the Henkels a couple days later, Fisch walked in and was introduced to Hauptmann. Fisch had moved into the Henkels' apartment building on May 12, 1932, i.e. over two months after the kidnapping, having closed out his electricity account for his previous residence, on East 157th Street, the day before. In a May 1934 handwritten draft letter to Isidor's brother Pinkas, Hauptmann wrote that he met met Isidor at the home of a family in an apartment building in which Isidor lived as well, and where they often gathered and spent many happy hours together. These coinciding accounts put the initial meeting clearly in early August 1932. What are the odds that Fisch and Hauptmann should have met independently at a prior date in a city of millions? It's possible that Hauptmann hired Fisch at some point to help him launder money, but Hauptmann was in this case long before Fisch ever knew him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 16:41:51 GMT -5
Let's not forget, though, that Hauptmann met Fisch through Karl and Gerta Henkel, the couple he had met at Hunters Island in late July 1932. When he visited the Henkels a couple days later, Fisch walked in and was introduced to Hauptmann. Fisch had moved into the Henkels' apartment building on May 12, 1932, i.e. over two months after the kidnapping, having closed out his electricity account for his previous residence, on East 157th Street, the day before. I haven't forgotten this. As far as the Henkels knew at that time, this was the first time Fisch and Hauptmann met. But is it really? According to Frederick Hahn's November 19,, 1934 statement in the District Attorney's office, Hahn had visited Hauptmann's apartment in June 1932. At this time, Hahn saw bags of money in Hauptmann's victrola. When Hahn inquired about this money, Hauptmann told him it belonged to Isidor Fisch. Also, please check out Michael's TDC Volume II, Chapter 9, pages 541 and 542. When Hauptmann was being questioned in District Attorney Breslin's office on Sept. 25, 1934, BRH was questioned about the serial numbers of the big bills he had made note of on the bedroom closet door. Hauptmann told Breslin those big bills were given to him by Isidor Fisch very early in 1932, probably in early March 1932. Yes! I have a copy of this letter. I do think it was important for Hauptmann to use that introduction date with Pinkas Fisch. It safely puts Hauptmann and Fisch's relationship distant to the kidnapping which was the source of the money these two men shared in this business relationship. No need for Pinkas to know about that!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 11, 2020 17:18:36 GMT -5
Let's not forget, though, that Hauptmann met Fisch through Karl and Gerta Henkel, the couple he had met at Hunters Island in late July 1932. When he visited the Henkels a couple days later, Fisch walked in and was introduced to Hauptmann. Fisch had moved into the Henkels' apartment building on May 12, 1932, i.e. over two months after the kidnapping, having closed out his electricity account for his previous residence, on East 157th Street, the day before. I haven't forgotten this. As far as the Henkels knew at that time, this was the first time Fisch and Hauptmann met. But is it really? According to Frederick Hahn's November 19,, 1934 statement in the District Attorney's office, Hahn had visited Hauptmann's apartment in June 1932. At this time, Hahn saw bags of money in Hauptmann's victrola. When Hahn inquired about this money, Hauptmann told him it belonged to Isidor Fisch. Also, please check out Michael's TDC Volume II, Chapter 9, pages 541 and 542. When Hauptmann was being questioned in District Attorney Breslin's office on Sept. 25, 1934, BRH was questioned about the serial numbers of the big bills he had made note of on the bedroom closet door. Hauptmann told Breslin those big bills were given to him by Isidor Fisch very early in 1932, probably in early March 1932. Yes! I have a copy of this letter. I do think it was important for Hauptmann to use that introduction date with Pinkas Fisch. It safely puts Hauptmann and Fisch's relationship distant to the kidnapping which was the source of the money these two men shared in this business relationship. No need for Pinkas to know about that! Hahn in the Hauptmanns' apartment in June '32? I don't think so. Anna would have remembered. And if Hauptmann said to Fritz the money came from Isidor Fisch, why didn't Fritz ask who Fisch was unless he was also acquainted with him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 19:50:48 GMT -5
Hahn in the Hauptmanns' apartment in June '32? I don't think so. Anna would have remembered. And if Hauptmann said to Fritz the money came from Isidor Fisch, why didn't Fritz ask who Fisch was unless he was also acquainted with him? Well, I suppose Anna would have remembered it if she was there. Hahn said he made this visit the middle of June. Anna was still working at the Fredericksens bakery in the middle of June. She didn't leave that job until June 22nd. Hauptmann did tell Hahn that the money belonged to Isidor Fisch. Hahn did ask Hauptmann who Fisch was. Hauptmann told Hahn he was a guy who lived down the street near a church. Of course BRH is lying about where Fisch lived, except the the church reference. Fisch was living almost right across the street from Birritella's Temple of Divine Power!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 11, 2020 20:42:00 GMT -5
Hahn in the Hauptmanns' apartment in June '32? I don't think so. Anna would have remembered. And if Hauptmann said to Fritz the money came from Isidor Fisch, why didn't Fritz ask who Fisch was unless he was also acquainted with him? Well, I suppose Anna would have remembered it if she was there. Hahn said he made this visit the middle of June. Anna was still working at the Fredericksens bakery in the middle of June. She didn't leave that job until June 22nd. Hauptmann did tell Hahn that the money belonged to Isidor Fisch. Hahn did ask Hauptmann who Fisch was. Hauptmann told Hahn he was a guy who lived down the street near a church. Of course BRH is lying about where Fisch lived, except the the church reference. Fisch was living almost right across the street from Birritella's Temple of Divine Power! I know Anna didn't quit her job until June 22nd. Don't you think her husband would have told her about Fritz's visit and his reason for being there? Both Anna and Richard ate at the Hahn restaurant frequently. The visit would have come up. And Richard showed Hahn that stash of ransom money where Anna dusted routinely, yet Anna knew nothing about it? Nothing makes sense here. The "down the street near a church" reference is the most preposterous of all. It's 95 city blocks from the Hauptmanns' place to Isidor's dwelling, and a German would not describe the Birrittellas' establishment as a church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 21:40:56 GMT -5
Don't you think her husband would have told her about Fritz's visit and his reason for being there? Both Anna and Richard ate at the Hahn restaurant frequently. The visit would have come up. If Hauptmann wanted to tell Anna about it, then I suppose he would have. There is no way for us to really know whether he mentioned it or not. It could be that neither men mentioned it to their wives. Who knows. Richard was showing Fred his apartment and the Victrola and Hahn saw the bags in there. How long Richard left them there, I do not know but apparently not long enough for Anna to find them. My personal opinion is that Fred Hahn had been there to visit and saw what he saw. Hauptmann told him about Fisch and answered Hahn's questions. When reading Hahn's statement, I do question when that first visit was made. I personally think it could have been earlier than June. More like April because Fred and Richard are talking about the old Victrola Hauptmann had not the new one. Hahn is clear that this is the visit he made to the Hauptmann apartment alone without his wife. The visit Fred made with his wife was after Anna had left for Germany and Hauptmann showed them the new Victrola he had bought. Right! Fisch was living quite a distance. Hauptmann wasn't telling Hahn where Fisch really lived. As far as the church reference goes, that is what Hahn said Richard told him whether it makes sense or not.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 12, 2020 5:03:34 GMT -5
but amy, theres no hard evidence that fisch was involved
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2020 6:15:24 GMT -5
but amy, theres no hard evidence that fisch was involved I hear what you are saying Steve. My position is that there were others involved with this kidnapping. I do not rule out the possibility that one of those persons could be Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 12, 2020 9:27:26 GMT -5
ok
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 12, 2020 21:11:01 GMT -5
Don't you think her husband would have told her about Fritz's visit and his reason for being there? Both Anna and Richard ate at the Hahn restaurant frequently. The visit would have come up. If Hauptmann wanted to tell Anna about it, then I suppose he would have. There is no way for us to really know whether he mentioned it or not. It could be that neither men mentioned it to their wives. Who knows. Richard was showing Fred his apartment and the Victrola and Hahn saw the bags in there. How long Richard left them there, I do not know but apparently not long enough for Anna to find them. My personal opinion is that Fred Hahn had been there to visit and saw what he saw. Hauptmann told him about Fisch and answered Hahn's questions. When reading Hahn's statement, I do question when that first visit was made. I personally think it could have been earlier than June. More like April because Fred and Richard are talking about the old Victrola Hauptmann had not the new one. Hahn is clear that this is the visit he made to the Hauptmann apartment alone without his wife. The visit Fred made with his wife was after Anna had left for Germany and Hauptmann showed them the new Victrola he had bought. Right! Fisch was living quite a distance. Hauptmann wasn't telling Hahn where Fisch really lived. As far as the church reference goes, that is what Hahn said Richard told him whether it makes sense or not. My overall impression of Fred Hahn's statement is that it was coached, that he was prodded along. Also, he ran a restaurant, a business usually requiring daily, all-day attention. When would he have had time on his own, without Marie, to spend time with Richard to admire the Hauptmanns' latest or outdated acquisitions? To me, his statement just doesn't ring true.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 8:03:20 GMT -5
I haven't forgotten this. As far as the Henkels knew at that time, this was the first time Fisch and Hauptmann met. But is it really? According to Frederick Hahn's November 19,, 1934 statement in the District Attorney's office, Hahn had visited Hauptmann's apartment in June 1932. At this time, Hahn saw bags of money in Hauptmann's victrola. When Hahn inquired about this money, Hauptmann told him it belonged to Isidor Fisch. Also, please check out Michael's TDC Volume II, Chapter 9, pages 541 and 542. When Hauptmann was being questioned in District Attorney Breslin's office on Sept. 25, 1934, BRH was questioned about the serial numbers of the big bills he had made note of on the bedroom closet door. Hauptmann told Breslin those big bills were given to him by Isidor Fisch very early in 1932, probably in early March 1932. Yes! I have a copy of this letter. I do think it was important for Hauptmann to use that introduction date with Pinkas Fisch. It safely puts Hauptmann and Fisch's relationship distant to the kidnapping which was the source of the money these two men shared in this business relationship. No need for Pinkas to know about that! Hahn in the Hauptmanns' apartment in June '32? I don't think so. Anna would have remembered. And if Hauptmann said to Fritz the money came from Isidor Fisch, why didn't Fritz ask who Fisch was unless he was also acquainted with him? I don’t believe Richard would necessarily have felt compelled to tell Anna of Fred Hahn’s first visit, especially in light of the bags of money observed by Hahn in the Victrola. Clearly Hahn was concerned and intrigued by the cash laying about and the matter-of-fact manner in which Hauptmann addressed it. Hauptmann’s claim that some of it belonged to a man named Fisch then prompted Fred to later ask his wife Marie whether she might be acquainted with this man Fisch, but that appeared to have not been the case. It was a different party that she knew. There is something very telling about the money bags incident, and I can’t help but feel it was staged by Hauptmann for his friend’s benefit, as well as his own. There is little rationale for storing a large amount of cash in both sides of a piece of working entertainment equipment, when a safe deposit box, suitcase or even a chest of drawers makes a far wiser location. It’s also very clear that Hauptmann was fond of showing off material possessions. He did the same thing later with his deluxe Stromberg-Carlsen Victrola when he brought both Hahns back to the house from Rye Beach, and even demonstrated his electric light garage alarm to them. When Hauptmann opened the top doors of the old Brunswick Super Heterodyne Victrola, I believe it was his intent to demonstrate to Hahn he was a man of means and capital. Did he quickly close the doors and attempt to change the subject, recognizing he was exposing something he didn’t want to? No. He casually mentions to Hahn that some of the money belongs to a man named Fisch. In his testimony, Hahn makes no mention of surprise, hesitation or concern within Hauptmann’s reaction and his subsequent explanation. This was Hauptmann being Wall Street Investor Hauptmann, and wanting others to know about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 8:24:07 GMT -5
Mbg,
Thanks for sharing your opinion of the Hahn statement. Each researcher places value on such statements as they feel led. We see the value of his statement differently. Nothing wrong with that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 8:40:13 GMT -5
Hahn in the Hauptmanns' apartment in June '32? I don't think so. Anna would have remembered. And if Hauptmann said to Fritz the money came from Isidor Fisch, why didn't Fritz ask who Fisch was unless he was also acquainted with him? I don’t believe Richard would necessarily have felt compelled to tell Anna of Fred Hahn’s first visit, especially in light of the bags of money observed by Hahn in the Victrola. Clearly Hahn was concerned and intrigued by the cash laying about and the matter-of-fact manner in which Hauptmann addressed it. Joe, I agree that Hauptmann would not have been compelled to mention that particular visit by Fred Hahn. I believe Hahn came forward because he thought Hauptmann could be guilty of involvement with the Lindbergh kidnapping. He saw that money and once the story broke with Hauptmann having all that ransom money, he recalled that incident in BRH's apartment. He thought the police should know about the money he saw in 1932. He does bring Fisch's name into the equation because that is who Hauptmann said the money belonged to. Hahn was never called by the prosecution. I believe this could be because of the Hauptmann/Fisch tie that money would create way before these men were supposed to know each other. The jury might see Fisch as an accomplice which is not something Wilentz would want the jury to consider. Do you think it was ransom money in those bags? Could Hauptmann have had that money there briefly because he was going to give it to Fisch for laundering?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 8:47:16 GMT -5
Don't you think her husband would have told her about Fritz's visit and his reason for being there? Both Anna and Richard ate at the Hahn restaurant frequently. The visit would have come up. If Hauptmann wanted to tell Anna about it, then I suppose he would have. There is no way for us to really know whether he mentioned it or not. It could be that neither men mentioned it to their wives. Who knows. I doubt Hauptmann would have mentioned the incident to Anna, but actually Fred did mention the same to his wife. From Marie Hahn's written testimony, Fred thought that perhaps this man named Fisch might have been someone Marie was acquainted with, and he queried her about the possibility. It turned out not to be the case. (Joe)
Richard was showing Fred his apartment and the Victrola and Hahn saw the bags in there. How long Richard left them there, I do not know but apparently not long enough for Anna to find them. My personal opinion is that Fred Hahn had been there to visit and saw what he saw. Hauptmann told him about Fisch and answered Hahn's questions. When reading Hahn's statement, I do question when that first visit was made. I personally think it could have been earlier than June. More like April because Fred and Richard are talking about the old Victrola Hauptmann had not the new one. Hahn is clear that this is the visit he made to the Hauptmann apartment alone without his wife. The visit Fred made with his wife was after Anna had left for Germany and Hauptmann showed them the new Victrola he had bought. I also believe Hahn's first visit which coincided with his and Richard's first swim together, probably happened in mid to late April, and Fred was confused about the date he gave two-and-a-half years later.
The first photo was provided earlier by IloveDFW, and shows NJSP troopers bringing the Brunswick Radiola into the courtroom. What I believe Hauptmann was referring to when he called it an "old timer" was in its handcrank operation for the phonograph. His later Stromberg-Carlsen Model 14A was all-electrically powered.
Here is a photo of a similar Brunswick Radiola from 1925, and the handcrank is barely visible on the right hand side. The top doors and front features are similar to Hauptmann's.
This is a restored Stromberg-Carlsen Model 14A identical to the one Hauptmann purchased in late April 1932 to replace the "old timer" which he gifted to the Muellers.
www.theradiofox.com/phono/sc14/index.html (Joe) Right! Fisch was living quite a distance. Hauptmann wasn't telling Hahn where Fisch really lived. As far as the church reference goes, that is what Hahn said Richard told him whether it makes sense or not. I'm wondering if something didn't get lost in the translation here, that is, what Hauptmann told Hahn, and then Hahn's later interpretation of the wording. In other words, could Hauptmann have said something like, "He lives near a church down the street on the same block"? In any case, it appears Hauptmann is talking about where Fisch actually lived at the time. And if he had have made this statement at the same time as the money bags in the "old timer" Victrola incident, then it does appear Hauptmann and Fisch had already met before their later introduction by the Henkels later that summer. (Joe)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 9:19:05 GMT -5
I don’t believe Richard would necessarily have felt compelled to tell Anna of Fred Hahn’s first visit, especially in light of the bags of money observed by Hahn in the Victrola. Clearly Hahn was concerned and intrigued by the cash laying about and the matter-of-fact manner in which Hauptmann addressed it. Joe, I agree that Hauptmann would not have been compelled to mention that particular visit by Fred Hahn. I believe Hahn came forward because he thought Hauptmann could be guilty of involvement with the Lindbergh kidnapping. He saw that money and once the story broke with Hauptmann having all that ransom money, he recalled that incident in BRH's apartment. He thought the police should know about the money he saw in 1932. He does bring Fisch's name into the equation because that is who Hauptmann said the money belonged to. Hahn was never called by the prosecution. I believe this could be because of the Hauptmann/Fisch tie that money would create way before these men were supposed to know each other. The jury might see Fisch as an accomplice which is not something Wilentz would want the jury to consider. Do you think it was ransom money in those bags? Could Hauptmann have had that money there briefly because he was going to give it to Fisch for laundering? I couldn't agree anymore with everything you've said above Amy, up to and including the reason that the Hahns were never called to testify. As for the source of the money in the paper bags, it well could have been ransom bills, but I also think that Hauptmann might have been unconsciously tipping his hand in a way here through the very acknowledgement that some of the money belonged to Fisch. If Fisch had had a hand in laundering ransom money by that time, which I believe could have been as early as mid to late April, then in theory, this may indicate some of the laundered proceeds would have belonged to Fisch based on this very illegitimate side of their "business partnership." I also think Hauptmann might well have been loathe to actually have Lindbergh ransom bills in the house or even show them to anyone, despite the fact that in this case they would not have been readily identifiable as such.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 9:36:06 GMT -5
The timeline of Fred Hahn's solo visit to the Hauptmanns' apartment has now been pushed back to April because he didn't see the Stromberg Carlson radio, which BRH would surely have bragged about. So how could BRH have told Hahn that Fisch was living near that church, etc., when he hadn't met the Henkels yet and Fisch had not yet moved to the apartment building near that church, i.e. the Birrittella temple? He didn't move there until May 12. The new timeline doesn't seem plausible to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 9:43:43 GMT -5
The timeline of Fred Hahn's solo visit to the Hauptmanns' apartment has now been pushed back to April because he didn't see the Stromberg Carlson radio, which BRH would surely have bragged about. So how could BRH have told Hahn that Fisch was living near that church, etc., when he hadn't met the Henkels yet and Fisch had not yet moved to the apartment building near that church, i.e. the Birrittella temple? He didn't move there until May 12. The new timeline doesn't seem plausible to me. Ah, I see what you mean, Joe: that there was a church near Isidor's earlier living quarters, which were only 65 blocks from BRH's, not 95. It's a safe bet that there would have been a church nearby, a landmark that would have meant nothing to Fred Hahn. All Hauptmann had to say was that Fisch lived at East 157th street, and Hahn would have gotten the idea. I still think Hahn was referring to the Birrittella "church" in his statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 9:59:58 GMT -5
Hauptmann did not say it was Birritella's church, only a church and yes there was one near Hauptmann that could have been such a reference point. Hahn did not know Fisch and probably had no interest in finding out. Seeing that money and how Hauptmann was handling it caused Hahn to ask questions. Hauptmann is clear about this victrola being an old one during that conversation with Hahn during this visit. I think mid to late April is more likely the time Hahn made that solo visit to Hauptmann's apartment the first time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 10:04:27 GMT -5
Thanks for that great post, Joe. The pictures reveal how similar in appearance these two radios were. The new victrola was seen by the Hahns in their joint visit to the Hauptmann apartment in July.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 10:12:24 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 10:13:11 GMT -5
The timeline of Fred Hahn's solo visit to the Hauptmanns' apartment has now been pushed back to April because he didn't see the Stromberg Carlson radio, which BRH would surely have bragged about. So how could BRH have told Hahn that Fisch was living near that church, etc., when he hadn't met the Henkels yet and Fisch had not yet moved to the apartment building near that church, i.e. the Birrittella temple? He didn't move there until May 12. The new timeline doesn't seem plausible to me. Ah, I see what you mean, Joe: that there was a church near Isidor's earlier living quarters, which were only 65 blocks from BRH's, not 95. It's a safe bet that there would have been a church nearby, a landmark that would have meant nothing to Fred Hahn. All Hauptmann had to say was that Fisch lived at East 157th street, and Hahn would have gotten the idea. I still think Hahn was referring to the Birrittella "church" in his statement. I'm just suggesting here that Hauptmann's answer could have been recalled incorrectly by Hahn two-and-a-half years later or even that Hauptmann misspoke intentionally or not. Would they have been talking in German or English, could there have been a basic misunderstanding or even a dialect issue here if German was being used? Would there really have been a good reason for Hauptmann to have been overly forthcoming specific about Fisch's location, considering Hahn really had nothing to do with the latter? Overall in this case, I think I'd tend to put more value in what was actually seen by Hahn in the Hauptmann home vs. his attempt to recall what was said then by Hauptmann.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 10:19:02 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. It would also seem to have too many corroborative details within both Fred and Marie Hahn's independent written testimonies, to have been simply fabricated. Certainly some of it may be inaccurate, given the length of time between the actual events and recollection. I don't think anyone's trying to paint it as anything but an intriguing piece of testimony worthy of wringing dry.
|
|