|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 13, 2021 12:02:42 GMT -5
Very interesting thoughts in your last post Joe. I would have one comment in regards to your last paragraph in reference to the $50,000 ransom amount. I know thay this has been discussed on the forum many times (and not to belabor it) but to me this $50,000 ransom which is the equivalent to about $900,000 in 2021 purchasing power is more than enough to motivate a group of 3 individuals like Hauptmann in 1932 It was such a great deal of money in the depths of the Great Depression. The kidnapper(s) knew that Lindbergh had money, but they needed this cash amount ready in just "2 to 4 days". They would have no idea exactly how much cash Lindbergh could actually produce in that short of time (and a short turn around for a swap of victim for cash is the hallmark of most successful kidnappings). Even with 3 individuals splitting this ransom amount, each would receive approximately $300,000 in today's money. I always remember what my father had told me about the Depression of the 1930's: "there was just no money out there for the average person to acquire". No credit cards, bank loans, etc. (an estimated 4,000 banks failed during 1933 alone, a number a States had NO banks in operation, and many families lost their life savings overnight). The only access to any cash for most people in the 1930's was a job if they were lucky enough to have one. I can only imagine what my father would have thought about the idea of receiving $300,000 in today's money in 1932 when he was 30 years old and was fortunate enough to have a job where he could work long hours just to put food on the table. It would have been completely unbelievable.
I just mention some of this because in my opinion it is so difficult for many of us today to really appreciate the great amount of money $50,000 was in 1932. For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Obviously this lack of legal opportunities to obtain money in the 1930's led to a rise in crime including the snatch racket. I would imagine that there were alot of people who committed crimes in the 1930's during the Great Depression that they would not have thought about doing in the preceeding Roaring 20's.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2021 13:12:10 GMT -5
Very interesting thoughts in your last post Joe. I would have one comment in regards to your last paragraph in reference to the $50,000 ransom amount. I know thay this has been discussed on the forum many times (and not to belabor it) but to me this $50,000 ransom which is the equivalent to about $900,000 in 2021 purchasing power is more than enough to motivate a group of 3 individuals like Hauptmann in 1932 It was such a great deal of money in the depths of the Great Depression. The kidnapper(s) knew that Lindbergh had money, but they needed this cash amount ready in just "2 to 4 days". They would have no idea exactly how much cash Lindbergh could actually produce in that short of time (and a short turn around for a swap of victim for cash is the hallmark of most successful kidnappings). Even with 3 individuals splitting this ransom amount, each would receive approximately $300,000 in today's money. I always remember what my father had told me about the Depression of the 1930's: "there was just no money out there for the average person to acquire". No credit cards, bank loans, etc. (an estimated 4,000 banks failed during 1933 alone, a number a States had NO banks in operation, and many families lost their life savings overnight). The only access to any cash for most people in the 1930's was a job if they were lucky enough to have one. I can only imagine what my father would have thought about the idea of receiving $300,000 in today's money in 1932 when he was 30 years old and was fortunate enough to have a job where he could work long hours just to put food on the table. It would have been completely unbelievable. I just mention some of this because in my opinion it is so difficult for many of us today to really appreciate the great amount of money $50,000 was in 1932. For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Obviously this lack of legal opportunities to obtain money in the 1930's led to a rise in crime including the snatch racket. I would imagine that there were alot of people who committed crimes in the 1930's during the Great Depression that they would not have thought about doing in the preceeding Roaring 20's. What you say is very true Lurp, and I do appreciate what would have been the purchase power of $50,000 in 1932, when you consider for example that Hauptmann paid only $737 for his new 1930 Dodge DD Sedan in March of 1931. I’ve always believed this crime was originally intended to be a quick “snatch and return” of ransom payment for the child within the specified 2 to 4 days. (dead or alive?) Perhaps then, the demanded amount was essentially decided upon in the interests of getting “in and out” quickly, at the same time believing Lindbergh would be able to raise that amount with little to no problems, versus delays that might be incurred if the amount had been much higher. As Hauptmann clearly benefitted from the lion’s share of Lindbergh's money, there seems little doubt by the time of the ransom payment anyway, he was basically flying solo other than some help with a possible lookout and/or some assistance within the money laundering process. If this had been a larger group effort, we’ll probably never know what other amounts might have considered for the ransom payment.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 13, 2021 13:16:25 GMT -5
Very interesting thoughts in your last post Joe. I would have one comment in regards to your last paragraph in reference to the $50,000 ransom amount. I know thay this has been discussed on the forum many times (and not to belabor it) but to me this $50,000 ransom which is the equivalent to about $900,000 in 2021 purchasing power is more than enough to motivate a group of 3 individuals like Hauptmann in 1932 It was such a great deal of money in the depths of the Great Depression. The kidnapper(s) knew that Lindbergh had money, but they needed this cash amount ready in just "2 to 4 days". They would have no idea exactly how much cash Lindbergh could actually produce in that short of time (and a short turn around for a swap of victim for cash is the hallmark of most successful kidnappings). Even with 3 individuals splitting this ransom amount, each would receive approximately $300,000 in today's money. I always remember what my father had told me about the Depression of the 1930's: "there was just no money out there for the average person to acquire". No credit cards, bank loans, etc. (an estimated 4,000 banks failed during 1933 alone, a number a States had NO banks in operation, and many families lost their life savings overnight). The only access to any cash for most people in the 1930's was a job if they were lucky enough to have one. I can only imagine what my father would have thought about the idea of receiving $300,000 in today's money in 1932 when he was 30 years old and was fortunate enough to have a job where he could work long hours just to put food on the table. It would have been completely unbelievable. I just mention some of this because in my opinion it is so difficult for many of us today to really appreciate the great amount of money $50,000 was in 1932. For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Obviously this lack of legal opportunities to obtain money in the 1930's led to a rise in crime including the snatch racket. I would imagine that there were alot of people who committed crimes in the 1930's during the Great Depression that they would not have thought about doing in the preceeding Roaring 20's. What you say is very true Lurp, and I do appreciate what would have been the purchase power of $50,000 in 1932, when you consider for example that Hauptmann paid only $737 for his new 1930 Dodge DD Sedan in March of 1931. I’ve always believed this crime was originally intended to be a quick “snatch and return” of ransom payment for the child within the specified 2 to 4 days. (dead or alive?) Perhaps then, the demanded amount was essentially decided upon in the interests of getting “in and out” quickly, at the same time believing Lindbergh would be able to raise that amount with little to no problems, versus delays that might be incurred if the amount had been much higher. As Hauptmann clearly benefitted from the lion’s share of Lindbergh's money, there seems little doubt by the time of the ransom payment anyway, he was basically flying solo other than some help with a possible lookout and/or some assistance within the money laundering process. If this had been a larger group effort, we’ll probably never know what other amounts might have considered for the ransom payment. I am so glad Joe brought this up. It's fascinating to me because I never considered aborted attempts. Gives me pause in my long held beliefs. Thanks Joe!!🤘
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 13, 2021 13:18:14 GMT -5
... For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Hi Lurp, FYI -- Hauptmann's gas and electricity account was turned off by Max Rauch on March 29, 1932, and reinstated by BRH on Monday, April 4, 1932, i.e. two days after the ransom payment. Interesting timing, huh? The lack of gas and electric on the night of the ransom payment makes BRH's alibi suspicious: that he and Anna and Kloppenburg had a play-and-sing-along that night in the Hautpmanns' apartment.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Sept 13, 2021 14:06:05 GMT -5
The ransom money might not be split up into equal parts among the kidnappers. There could be overhead: lookouts, rented rooms, babysitters, car rentals. Peter and Mary had expenses when they traveled from the Bronx to Princeton NJ. So the bulk might go to the kidnappers, but there were others who cooperated and needed some reward. Remember that the 50,000 was once upped by another 20,000, added expenses perhaps and an incentive to finish rhe deal.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2021 14:27:44 GMT -5
... For someone like Hauptmann who was not working steadily and was about to have his electricity cut off due to a lack of payment, just getting a cut of this ransom payment that would equal $300,000 in today's money would have been an absolute windfall. Hi Lurp, FYI -- Hauptmann's gas and electricity account was turned off by Max Rauch on March 29, 1932, and reinstated by BRH on Monday, April 4, 1932, i.e. two days after the ransom payment. Interesting timing, huh? The lack of gas and electric on the night of the ransom payment makes BRH's alibi suspicious: that he and Anna and Kloppenburg had a play-and-sing-along that night in the Hautpmanns' apartment. View AttachmentApropos crumbling alibis: At the District Attorney's office, Maria Mueller, Anna Hauptmann's niece, was asked what hours Anna worked at the bakery. Her answer: "I think she always worked in the daytime. She told me once she had to change from 10:00 to 8:00 in the evening and next time had to work from 7:00 in the morning till five in the afternoon, but that's all I know." This means Anna worked 10-hour shifts: 7 am to 5 pm four days a week and 10 am to 8:00 pm on Tuesdays and Fridays. Hauptmann claimed that on Tuesday, March 1, 1932, he drove Anna to work, then put the car back into the garage and walked to the subway station to get to work at the Majestic for an 8 am work start. But on that day, Anna's shift didn't start until 10 am. So not only did Hauptmann lie about working at the Majestic on March 1 (we know he didn't based on his cashed checks), he also lied about driving Anna to work for a 7 am shift. If, on that day, for whatever reason, Anna had started at 7 am, she'd have been done at 5 pm and there would have been no need for BRH to pick her up at 8 pm or later, or walk the dog, or do whatever else he said he did at the bakery that night. Can't have it both ways, Richard.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 14:58:35 GMT -5
Re: the ransom money: It's quite possible that the kidnappers were astute enough to launder the money and contacted Isidor Fisch even before the ransom was paid to bargain with him for that purpose. Fisch was not able to pay the amount requested and so borrowed from friends, including Hauptmann whom he had just met, and promised repayment immediately with a stipend attached. Hauptmann would have given Fisch just about everything he had on his accounts in order to accommodate the request. When the ransom money was not paid for some weeks, contrary to the kidnappers' expectations, Hauptmann had nothing to pay even ordinary expenses, including his rent and utilities. He got his share only after the ransom had been paid and laundered; this took about a month, a delay not expected by the kidnappers or the launderer.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 15:02:05 GMT -5
When Hauptmann was in jail, he told his wife that "he had given Fisch everything." He may well have been indicating that he in fact did given Fisch all his savings in order to gain a good profit on the laundering action.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 13, 2021 15:25:14 GMT -5
... Fisch was not able to pay the amount requested and so borrowed from friends, including Hauptmann whom he had just met, and promised repayment immediately with a stipend attached. Metje, When did Hauptmann and Fisch meet?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 13, 2021 16:12:57 GMT -5
When Hauptmann was in jail, he told his wife that "he had given Fisch everything." He may well have been indicating that he in fact did given Fisch all his savings in order to gain a good profit on the laundering action. At the trial he told a different story. Every time he was asked where this or that money came from (and we are talking thousands!), Hauptmann's reply was, "This money came from Mr. Fisch." So which was it?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 16:24:31 GMT -5
Supposedly Isidore Fisch and Richard Hauptmann met in the middle of the summer of 1932, but on the witness stand Gerta Henkel testified that that particular introduction was "a joke" since the Henkels knew that Fisch and Hauptmann already knew each other, having met at least earlier that year. You can check this out in Gerta's testimony at the trial. Fisch said on one occasion that he knew Hauptmann prior to July of 1932. The statement that Hauptmann made to his wife while he was in prison has been posted on the board already. Also, Anna said to a woman who was taking care of her during the trial that Richard "was only supposed to get the money" and then refused to say anything else. When Hauptmann appealed to the Court of Pardons in December of 1935, he named both Isidore Fisch and John Mohrdieck. It's possible that the Mohrdieks also lent Fisch money for laundering purposes; (they had lent him money before for the pie business ), but there apparently was no follow-up or investigation here. The appeal to the Court of Pardons was simply denied though Mohrdieck was still alive. Hauptmann also told his wife while in prison that "if Fisch were still alive, I wouldn't be here."
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 17:27:51 GMT -5
In addition to Gerta Henkel's testimony, Hauptmann gave his own story of his meeting with Fisch for the first time. He said that he met Fisch on Hunter's Island in February or March of 1932. He was in the company of a blond German who spoke with an Austrian accent, taller than Fisch, and called Fritz. There was such a person, according to Fisher, whose name appeared on several affidavits and who was called "Fisch's front man." So there should have been some investigation of this person whose name would appear on the affidavits. So at the meeting on Hunter's Island, according to Hauptmann, the two began to discuss a partnership in the "fur business." So this is Hauptmann's story, and in fact there was a Fritz who was associated with Fisch. The story may or may not be real, but Mrs. Henkel's testimony at the Hauptmann trial did indicate that Hauptmann knew Fisch earlier than the July "introduction" that she insisted was only a joke since the Henkels knew the two already knew each other.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 17:49:01 GMT -5
To Guest: Sorry if I was not making myself clear. i proposed that the kidnappers wanted to get rid of their money immediately so it would not be traced to them. There was much publicity surrounding the case, as Lindbergh had contacted the police, there was an investigation, and the papers were publishing the news. The kidnappes would not want to take a chance to be caught with the money. They had asked that no record br made of the registration of the bills, but they could not, with any confidence, assume that would not happen. So they laundered the money. This means that someone buys the money but at a reduced price. The ransom money would be called "hot money"; there were some persons who made money by purchasing hot money at a reduced price. Fisch was thought to be a purchaser of hot money. So I was suggesting that Fisch purchased the ransom money, but he would have to put up money himself in order to buy the hot money. He did not have the money himself to do this, so he turned to his friends to borrow money to complete the purchase. One such friend or business partner was Richard Hauptmann. Hauptmann would not need to have any direct meeting with the kidnappers. He would only forward such money as Fisch requested to help him make the purchase. Then in return, he would get all his money back plus a handsome percentage since the hot money would be sold at a reduced price. He may have given Fisch most of all of his savings, as he had nothing left after the police took the ransom money they found, and he did tell his wife that he gave Fisch "everything." I hope this explanation helps.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2021 18:21:55 GMT -5
... Fisch was not able to pay the amount requested and so borrowed from friends, including Hauptmann whom he had just met, and promised repayment immediately with a stipend attached. Metje, When did Hauptmann and Fisch meet? Here is Gerta Henkel's trial testimony, and it's quite contradictory. She says Fisch himself told her that he had met Hauptmann before the official introduction at her apartment. If she knew this, why didn't she tell this story to Asst. DA Breslin after Hauptmann's arrest? She also doesn't say when exactly Isidor shared that tidbit with her, but it certainly could not have been after he died. Q. Now, you knew him [Fisch] before you knew Hauptmann? A. Uh-huh. Q. You met Hauptmann at Hunters Island? A. Yep. Q. When you met Hauptmann at Hunters Island, you weren’t with your husband, were you? A. No. Q. When Hauptmann met you at Hunters Island he was not with his wife? A. No. Q. And that was in the summer of 1932? A. Yep. Q. And then Mr. Hauptmann came to your house afterwards and met your husband? A. Uh-huh. Q. And while he was at your house he was introduced to Isidor Fisch, isn’t that right? A. Yes. Well, it was, at the first time they met, at my house, they were introduced. Q. So far as you know, Mrs. Henkel— A. Uh-huh. Q. — the first time Hauptmann ever met Fisch was in your house, isn’t that true? A. Well, but Mr. Fisch told me he met him before, but it was the first time they met in my house. I didn’t know that before. Q. Now, Madam, you never knew that? A. No. Q. So far as you know, the first time Hauptmann met Fisch was in your house, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you were asked that question by the police? A. Uh-huh. Q. And you told them that you introduced him, didn’t you? A. Well, certainly, I didn’t know it before, nobody told me. Q. When you were asked by the police about Hauptmann and Fisch and when they got to know each other, didn’t you tell them that you introduced Fisch to Hauptmann? A. But they knew each other before that. Q. Now, you please answer the question. Didn’t you tell them that? A. I did it, because nobody told me before that they knew each other. Q. But you did it, didn’t you? A. Well, that is as much as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 13, 2021 19:43:05 GMT -5
To Guest: Sorry if I was not making myself clear. i proposed that the kidnappers wanted to get rid of their money immediately so it would not be traced to them. There was much publicity surrounding the case, as Lindbergh had contacted the police, there was an investigation, and the papers were publishing the news. The kidnappes would not want to take a chance to be caught with the money. They had asked that no record br made of the registration of the bills, but they could not, with any confidence, assume that would not happen. So they laundered the money. This means that someone buys the money but at a reduced price. The ransom money would be called "hot money"; there were some persons who made money by purchasing hot money at a reduced price. Fisch was thought to be a purchaser of hot money. So I was suggesting that Fisch purchased the ransom money, but he would have to put up money himself in order to buy the hot money. He did not have the money himself to do this, so he turned to his friends to borrow money to complete the purchase. One such friend or business partner was Richard Hauptmann. Hauptmann would not need to have any direct meeting with the kidnappers. He would only forward such money as Fisch requested to help him make the purchase. Then in return, he would get all his money back plus a handsome percentage since the hot money would be sold at a reduced price. He may have given Fisch most of all of his savings, as he had nothing left after the police took the ransom money they found, and he did tell his wife that he gave Fisch "everything." I hope this explanation helps. Metje, The ransom bill serial numbers were listed in the newspapers for the first time on April 11, 1932 - only 9 days after the ransom was paid. Do you think that whoever Hauptmann went to launder the ransom money would have completed this transaction knowing that the serial numbers were in the newspapers and for all to see? How would those people have spent the ransom money? And I do agree with MBG, it really looks like Hauptmann and Fisch did not meet until the end of July or early August 1932. I don't see Fisch having anything to do with the kidnapping (he had a solid alibi for March 1) and I don't see any evidence that Fisch had one bill of the ransom money. Why wouldn't he have taken some to Germany and spent it there?
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 13, 2021 22:19:12 GMT -5
At the trial Gerta Henkel referred to her introduction of Fisch and Hauptmann as "a joke" since she said that she learned later that they had known one another previously. The introduction, she said, was useless for later Mr. Fisch told her that they had already met. "There was joking about it."
At the trial: Q. You introduced Fisch to Hauptmann at your house. A. Yes, after that I learned they had already met.
Later she claimed that Fisch told her about the earlier introduction himself. If people want to believe otherwise, then they need to establish the facts and present the evidence. Did Gerta Henkel commit perjury at her testimony? What is the proof? Why would she perjure herself? Hauptmann gave the story that he met Fisch in February or March 1932. Hauptmann could invent stories, of course, but if he knew Fisch prior to July 1932, how do we know that this story was created? Fritz, Isidor's companion, did exist and assisted him in writing affidavits. That much is factual. He was taller than Fisch, blond, and spoke German with an Austrian accent, and Hauptmann met him and could describe him. This person should have been identified and investigated. The problem is that some people hold a pet theory and dismiss any information that runs counter to it. We don't make progress that way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2021 8:13:22 GMT -5
Hi Lurp, FYI -- Hauptmann's gas and electricity account was turned off by Max Rauch on March 29, 1932, and reinstated by BRH on Monday, April 4, 1932, i.e. two days after the ransom payment. Interesting timing, huh? The lack of gas and electric on the night of the ransom payment makes BRH's alibi suspicious: that he and Anna and Kloppenburg had a play-and-sing-along that night in the Hautpmanns' apartment. View AttachmentApropos crumbling alibis: At the District Attorney's office, Maria Mueller, Anna Hauptmann's niece, was asked what hours Anna worked at the bakery. Her answer: "I think she always worked in the daytime. She told me once she had to change from 10:00 to 8:00 in the evening and next time had to work from 7:00 in the morning till five in the afternoon, but that's all I know." This means Anna worked 10-hour shifts: 7 am to 5 pm four days a week and 10 am to 8:00 pm on Tuesdays and Fridays. Hauptmann claimed that on Tuesday, March 1, 1932, he drove Anna to work, then put the car back into the garage and walked to the subway station to get to work at the Majestic for an 8 am work start. But on that day, Anna's shift didn't start until 10 am. So not only did Hauptmann lie about working at the Majestic on March 1 (we know he didn't based on his cashed checks), he also lied about driving Anna to work for a 7 am shift. If, on that day, for whatever reason, Anna had started at 7 am, she'd have been done at 5 pm and there would have been no need for BRH to pick her up at 8 pm or later, or walk the dog, or do whatever else he said he did at the bakery that night. Can't have it both ways, Richard. Hi Mbg, I believe as Anna was the only waitress (other than Katie Frederickson at times) serving in March of 1932, she was expected to work until closing time on Tuesday and Friday evenings, as these were Katie’s evenings off. It therefore makes sense that she would have started later. Her trial testimony though reveals that her regular Tuesday hours were from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. She also testifies that Richard came by the bakery around 7:00 pm on March 1, 1932 and they left together around 9:30 pm. Just how she would have been able to recollect these times makes no sense to me unless there had been a simultaneous event of memorable significance to indelibly connect Richard’s arrival time, their departure time and recollection of the drive home on that specific evening. Here I believe she is simply doing her best to help Richard by stating her regular hours and also a standard routine they followed, unless Richard didn’t show in which case she had to make her way home alone. Regardless, neither Christian nor Katie Frederickson were able to swear at the trial that Anna was even present at the bakery on the night of March 1. Supporters of Anna’s honesty in testimony here point to the fact that she became aware of the Lindbergh kidnapping at the bakery on the morning of March 2, therefore she would have been able to accurately recall her location and actions from the evening before. I’ve long discounted this. Case in point, I’m sure anyone who’s old enough can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the moment they heard that JFK had been assassinated. I recall this clearly, but for the life of me wouldn’t have a clue as to where I was and what I was doing the evening before. As someone who was not involved in the chain of events leading up to the assassination, I would have had no reason to. The mind and consciousness simply do not work in reverse in such cases. Having said that, I’ve always been intrigued by something Anna said during her first visit back to Flemington, New Jersey from the time of the trial itself. This occurred in 1991 just a few years before her death and it was in part, publicity for her lawsuit against the state of NJ for the wrongful death of her husband. During that visit, she claimed that on March 1, 1932, the night the child was kidnapped – that “nasty and cold night,” as she called it – her husband picked her up from the bakery where she worked and the two drove to their home in the Bronx, where they stayed through the night. Of course, she may simply have been speaking rhetorically and within a general reflection of accounts from people who had specific reason to recall the weather conditions of that night, eg. those who lived near the Lindberghs and therefore recall the activity and chaos from that very same evening. Still… as unlikely as it may seem to many, and in light of some reports that the smaller of the two footprint trails could have been made by a woman, I’ve never been able to personally eliminate the possibility that Anna indeed recalled the weather conditions of that night because she was actually there assisting her husband kidnap the Lindbergh child. At the very least, I believe she held fast to Richard’s plea to her, as she revealed in her interview with Anthony Scaduto, to “never give up.. never give up, Anni.” And I also believe she was able to align herself so effectively behind her husband’s cause within the protestation of his absolute innocence, because she ultimately became every bit as good a liar as he was.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 14, 2021 13:42:26 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree with most of what you say: the unlikelihood of remembering the day before an indelible event years later, including, in our case, Anna's exact recollection of her husband's arrival at the bakery and their leaving together. I stand corrected on the working hours. Christian Frederiksen stated at the trial that Anna started at 7 am even on Tuesdays and Fridays, but there is still Maria's 10 to 8 story. (Just for info, in the spring of '32 Anna was making $40/week.) As to that cold, nasty night: The newspapers had written about it at length. Anna may simply have wanted to imply that on nights like that her husband always picked her up. I doubt that she remembered the weather that night. But then I also don't think she was at Highfields on March 1. Lupica saw only one person in the Dodge. Anna would have been sitting in the back if she had gone there with Richard (assuming he was the driver of the car). I believe at some point she realized that her husband was involved in at least the extortion angle and tried her best to cover for him. She knew a lot more than she ever revealed, of that I'm convinced.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Sept 14, 2021 18:06:12 GMT -5
Joe
I disagree with your comments that people do not remember where they were the day before a defining event. For example - I clearly remember what I was doing the night before the twin towers attack. I watched the events on that evening, and at that time recalled I had emailed a cousin the US just the night before. This in itself brings to mind the room I was in, the time of day, the house I as living in etc. This will always be associated in my mind with where I was when I heard the news of that day.
In the same way that someone might hear of a death in the family or of an old friend, they may say "I was just thinking about her yesterday" or "isn't that funny, xxx mentioned him the other day", this can form part of the memory around learning of the death, and become part of the recollection of it. Only sometimes, of course.
I clearly remember the day John Lennon was killed and I know that I had just came home from work, and how shocked I was, but I would really have to backtrack and think hard as to where I was working back then. So two things may go to recollecting things that happened years before - what memories you form around it at the time, and the length of time gone past.
So Anna may well remember the events of the day / night before the kidnap for similar reasons. She was at work when she heard, and at work when it happened and this formed her recollection of the event.
I'd like to make it clear I am not taking a position as to what she did recollect - only that people can remember their movements and doings prior to an event, and relate them at a later time.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 15, 2021 10:16:56 GMT -5
Commenting here on the mysterious Fritz mentioned in an above post: In "The Case That Never Dies" Lloyd Gardner writes that Fisch's career as a "hot money vendor" was documented in a number of affidavits obtained by defense lawyer Lloyd Fisher AFTER THE TRIAL. (caps. mine). In one of them a blond-headed man taller than Fisch sought to act as a go-between to arrange a sale of a billiard parlor. (p. 257) The would-be buyer backed off when he saw who the seller was since he had already told "Fritz" that Fisch was indebted to him for borrowed money. Another appearance of Fritz shortly after the kidnapping is mentioned (p.258): the price of the hot money was 75 cents on the dollar which the intended buyer refused, saying that the price was too much. So there was someone named Fritz who acted as a front-man for Fisch. The information came too late to the defense, and apparently Fritz was never investigated. I wonder if anyone has other information on this person. It's quite possible that Hauptmann did meet Isidor and Fritz on Hunter's Island in February of 1932. An earlier post indicated that on the weekend of Feb. 27-28 of 1932 Hauptmann was on Hunter's Island playing soccer.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 15, 2021 10:47:03 GMT -5
I should add that the purpose of my comments on the post just made was to affirm the existence of "Fritz' who Hauptmann claimed was in the company of Isidor Fisch when he first met Fisch. He said that this first introduction to Isidor occurred in Feb. or March of 1932 on Hunter's Island. He also described Fritz as blond, taller than Fisch, and speaking with an Austrian accent. There should be signatures and dates on any affidavits if they can be found. It's unfortunate, at least for Hauptmann, that this information turned up only after the trial was over.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Sept 15, 2021 12:19:48 GMT -5
According to the US 1940 Census, Karl Henkel was born in 1898, and Gerta was born in 1910. So Karl was 12 years older than his wife. He would have been 34 years old at the time of the kidnapping and she would have been 22. At the time of the kidnapping trial, Gerta would have been about 25. According to the newspapers, she was quite the sensation at the trial, prefacing her responses often with "oh, gee" . Karl and Gerta had one child, a girl named Carole who was born in 1936.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 15, 2021 19:12:57 GMT -5
I should add that the purpose of my comments on the post just made was to affirm the existence of "Fritz' who Hauptmann claimed was in the company of Isidor Fisch when he first met Fisch. He said that this first introduction to Isidor occurred in Feb. or March of 1932 on Hunter's Island. He also described Fritz as blond, taller than Fisch, and speaking with an Austrian accent. There should be signatures and dates on any affidavits if they can be found. It's unfortunate, at least for Hauptmann, that this information turned up only after the trial was over. A Fritz speaking with an Austrian accent? No. That's like a Union soldier naming his boy Robert E. Isidor's blond friend was Eugen(e) Gewürz (later Gewuerz), a fellow furrier, and Hauptmann's generous gesture of offering them a ride took place much later -- "drust" me!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 16, 2021 4:02:35 GMT -5
Languages and dialects are not landlocked. The German spoken in Bavaria sounds a lot like German with an Austrian accent, for example. Those Germans living close to the Austrian border may have a dialect that resembles German with an Austrian accent. Eugene Gewuerz, age 25, is recorded as coming to New York from Germany in January of 1930, and his occupation is listed as a fireman.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2021 7:07:36 GMT -5
Joe I disagree with your comments that people do not remember where they were the day before a defining event. For example - I clearly remember what I was doing the night before the twin towers attack. I watched the events on that evening, and at that time recalled I had emailed a cousin the US just the night before. This in itself brings to mind the room I was in, the time of day, the house I as living in etc. This will always be associated in my mind with where I was when I heard the news of that day. In the same way that someone might hear of a death in the family or of an old friend, they may say "I was just thinking about her yesterday" or "isn't that funny, xxx mentioned him the other day", this can form part of the memory around learning of the death, and become part of the recollection of it. Only sometimes, of course. I clearly remember the day John Lennon was killed and I know that I had just came home from work, and how shocked I was, but I would really have to backtrack and think hard as to where I was working back then. So two things may go to recollecting things that happened years before - what memories you form around it at the time, and the length of time gone past. So Anna may well remember the events of the day / night before the kidnap for similar reasons. She was at work when she heard, and at work when it happened and this formed her recollection of the event. I'd like to make it clear I am not taking a position as to what she did recollect - only that people can remember their movements and doings prior to an event, and relate them at a later time. I believe the key in your case, is that you consciously thought back, at that time, to the evening before 9/11. When Hauptmann was arrested, Anna could not recall if Richard had picked her up on the evening of March 1, because she had not fixed in her mind at that time, the evening before the morning in which she first heard the news of the kidnapping. She immediately claimed to investigators, something to the effect that "it was too long ago" to remember whether he had or not. When she became aware that the night of the kidnapping was a Tuesday, it triggered her recognition that Richard usually did pick her up after working late at Fredericksen's Bakery, but without specific reference to that very evening. During the trial, she testified Richard arrived at the bakery around 7:00 pm and they went home around 9:30 pm. Here she was just doing her best here to help out her husband by stating this in fact when in reality, she had nothing to back it up. Wilentz missed an opportunity here to press her on exactly how she would have been able to recall the events of March 1, 1932 at the bakery, specific to Richard having been there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2021 8:40:05 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I agree with most of what you say: the unlikelihood of remembering the day before an indelible event years later, including, in our case, Anna's exact recollection of her husband's arrival at the bakery and their leaving together. I stand corrected on the working hours. Christian Frederiksen stated at the trial that Anna started at 7 am even on Tuesdays and Fridays, but there is still Maria's 10 to 8 story. (Just for info, in the spring of '32 Anna was making $40/week.) As to that cold, nasty night: The newspapers had written about it at length. Anna may simply have wanted to imply that on nights like that her husband always picked her up. I doubt that she remembered the weather that night. But then I also don't think she was at Highfields on March 1. Lupica saw only one person in the Dodge. Anna would have been sitting in the back if she had gone there with Richard (assuming he was the driver of the car). I believe at some point she realized that her husband was involved in at least the extortion angle and tried her best to cover for him. She knew a lot more than she ever revealed, of that I'm convinced. Good point Mbg, about Lupica's eyewitness testimony as to the lone occupant within the Dodge, and that would also apply to the other accounts by Mrs. Conover and her daughter-in-law. You're right that if Anna had been in the car, the back seat would have been the only place for her with the ladder angled over the front passenger seat. Although it seems a bit unlikely, I still wouldn't count it out though, as stranger things have happened in true crime. Here is the same model, a 1930 Dodge DD Sedan, which gives a great idea of interior layout and perhaps some possibilities. waimakclassiccars.co.nz/listings/1930-dodge-six/ If not directly involved, at the very least, I also believe Anna might well have become fully aware of her husband’s involvement in the extortion before his arrest. When she returned from Germany in the summer of 1932, after going out of her way to see if her dear Richard would be able to return there, she discovered he had suddenly taken up a life of relative leisure while frequenting Hunter’s Island much more than ever. Even before that, she found herself blessed by Richard’s apparent generosity through the purchase of many expensive evening dresses and a spending amount in the neighborhood of $1000 for her upcoming trip. On her return, I feel there would have been much discussion and concern about how they were suddenly so financially well off, when previously, he had suffered regular stock market losses that had been the source of numerous arguments between them, why wasn’t he actively looking for work, and just who was this Gerta Henkel? Anna may have presented herself as an obedient German hausfrau who shrank in the light of her husband, but she was nobody’s fool when it came to a horse sense understanding of basic numbers and the very close personal relationship she had with her husband. I believe it would have been around the time of her return from Germany that Anna and Richard made a pact that they both swore to never break. Basically it would have read something to the effect that, Richard promises to be a good and faithful husband and father to their children going forward, and Anna promises to faithfully devote herself to him, in spite of any and all past indiscretions. It could have been during this time that Richard would have let her know the true source of the money he was obviously enjoying by way of some of his lavish purchases. How much detail was involved here relative to the actual kidnapping is of course speculation at this point. But I’d also venture there was indeed some truth behind journalist Jeanette Smits’s account of her relationship with Anna Hauptmann during the trial, specifically when Anna made that unexpected statement to her that she never repeated, “But, he was only supposed to get the money!”
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 16, 2021 9:31:43 GMT -5
Languages and dialects are not landlocked. The German spoken in Bavaria sounds a lot like German with an Austrian accent, for example. Those Germans living close to the Austrian border may have a dialect that resembles German with an Austrian accent. Eugene Gewuerz, age 25, is recorded as coming to New York from Germany in January of 1930, and his occupation is listed as a fireman. True, but once in the US he worked as a furrier. I believe furrier was misread as fireman and transcribed incorrectly from the ship's manifest. That was my initial guess when I looked up his profile years ago. Eugen was born in Switzerland and raised in Vienna. The Viennese accent and dialect have a charm all their own. Bavarian accents and dialects sound different. Hauptmann would have been able to discern the regional differences.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 16, 2021 10:18:32 GMT -5
Interesting! so if Eugen Gewuerz was raised in Vienna, then he would have an Austrian accent! Vienna is the capital of Austria. The word for fireman in German is "Feuerwehrmann"; this was designated as his occupation when he entered the country, and the word means "fireman" or "fire worker." The German word for furrier does not resemble the word for fireman. The word for furrier in German is Kurschner (umlaut over "u") or Pelzandler (umlaut over "a"). Sorry, but this computer does not have an umlaut key. The record indicates that he was from Germany, though (Deutchland). So he must have worked as a furrier after he entered the US and partnered with Isidor Fisch. It all fits! Except for the nickname "Fritz"; how Eugen would acquire this nickname is another question. So Eugen is quite possibly the man Hauptmann met with Isidor on Hunter's Island. He described the man as taller than Isidor, blond, and speaking with an Austrian accent.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 16, 2021 12:09:55 GMT -5
Interesting! so if Eugen Gewuerz was raised in Vienna, then he would have an Austrian accent! Vienna is the capital of Austria. The word for fireman in German is "Feuerwehrmann"; this was designated as his occupation when he entered the country, and the word means "fireman" or "fire worker." The German word for furrier does not resemble the word for fireman. The word for furrier in German is Kurschner (umlaut over "u") or Pelzandler (umlaut over "a"). Sorry, but this computer does not have an umlaut key. The record indicates that he was from Germany, though (Deutchland). So he must have worked as a furrier after he entered the US and partnered with Isidor Fisch. It all fits! Except for the nickname "Fritz"; how Eugen would acquire this nickname is another question. So Eugen is quite possibly the man Hauptmann met with Isidor on Hunter's Island. He described the man as taller than Isidor, blond, and speaking with an Austrian accent. Aaron, just for accuracy: Eugen and his brother Heinrich ("Jack") were both furriers by trade since their teens, never firemen. They had written their occupations in English on the German ship forms, resulting in the incorrect transcription "fireman." On the incoming ship's manifest both are listed as furriers. They arrivedon the SS Muenchen from Bremen on Feb. 11, 1930. Eugen's last name is misspelled as Gezuerz, "Jack's" correctly as Gewuerz. They were returning from visiting their father in Vienna. Their names appear on page 28 of the manifest. At 5' 6", Eugen wasn't much taller than Isidor but, at 140 lbs, heavier, thus Hauptmann describing him as "stocky built." The date of the alleged incident at Hunters Island remains at issue, though. Tubercular Isidor would not have been sitting curbside there with the cold, wet February bay wind blowing into his lungs.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2021 12:32:34 GMT -5
Joe, You relate some very valid and interesting points in regards to Richard's and Anna's relationship upon her return from Germany. It's very hard to imagine that Anna did not question the source of their sudden financial gains and Richard's ability to be unemployed. Both Anna and Richard had always been working class people. In Anna's 9/21/34 interview with Assistant D.A. Breslin she certainly expressed a great dislike of Gerta Henkel who Anna said that Richard had met while she (Anna) was in Germany. Breslin hit her pretty directly with intimations that Richard had an affair with Gerta, but Anna wouldn't "bite" on that. I'm sure Breslin was just attempting to use that information to "turn" Anna against Richard but he obviously wasn't successful with that angle. The statement that you relate in your above post regarding Anna's alleged statement to journalist Smits is very telling. For me, it relates somewhat to C.J.'s alleged statement to Condon "would I burn if I did not kill it". Does anyone know the identity of the man in the below photo who is right/front eating a banana? It's a picnic photo taken at Hunters Island with Hauptmann, Klappenburg and the Henkels. Attachment Deleted
|
|