Just so people can be informed - I am posting a link to an actual work-sheet for this account. As one can see, Hauptmann's name and address are quite clearly included on the Account. Applying this to those who constantly bring this account up as if it proves something - you can now make an informed decision as to their motive and/or ignorance concerning this.
Also, if someone is willing to be this negligent, reckless, and/or malicious in their presentation of what they portray as facts....how on earth can one trust anything else they say?
The question remains - what was Hauptmann's true intent in making deposits to his wife's maiden name account, Miss Anna Schoeffler?
Do you agree with Hauptmann's explanation to Reilly at the trial as to why he did this - to avoid the possibility of an Alexander Begg lawsuit, this after he had already agreed on the settled amount with Begg?
Honestly that wasn't my point. My point is that if it is going to be made an issue of then the complete and true situation should be told instead of "half-truths" regarding this account. The man's name and address are clearly on it. So the insinuation that he was trying to 'hide' ransom money under his wife's maiden name is BS.
Now if searching for the reason(s) why one would have to examine Hauptmann's explanation....
The Begg accident, according to the Police Report, was on 10-17-32. Hauptmann's first payment of $75 was paid on 12-21-32 and second payment of $20.00 on 1-4-33, etc. He only owed a total of $300 so while the opening of this account seems to support his explanation the total amount owed does not. I have always thought this incident gave him the idea to do it for several reasons. The idea that maybe if something were to happen to him the money would be protected - not that the Police or any other Investigative body would not find out he had this account. Obviously with his name on it that would defeat that purpose - agreed?
Dr. Gardner offers up an interesting idea concerning this account on pg. 325 in his book The Case That Never Dies.
I can't comment on the legalities of establishing bank and stock accounts in a spouse's or other person's name at the time he did it. I simply don't buy Hauptmann's explanation under oath that he did this to avoid further seeking of damages from Alexander Begg.
His establishment of the "Anna Schoeffler" account at the end of March, 1933, happened four or five months after he had agreed to compensate Begg for an established amount, but right about the time he began his large scale stock trading. It seems clear to me he was attempting to divert attention from himself here in light of the sheer size of the dollar amount ultimately traded in that year, with or without Fisch's involvement. He was well aware of the fact he hadn't cracked Wall Street despite his boasting to friends and acquaintances, so there is plenty of motive for an unemployed carpenter to create some diversion from monetary activities that just don't balance in the real world.
The question remains in my own mind, and considering the "c/o Hauptmann" on the information form, why not set up the account as "Mrs. Anna Hauptmann?" Why the obvious attempt to distance oneself from the activities within that account using "Miss," an indication of an unmarried woman, followed by that same woman's maiden name?
The question remains in my own mind, and considering the "c/o Hauptmann" on the information form, why not set up the account as "Mrs. Anna Hauptmann?" (Joe)
Why not keep his wife out of the loop altogether and invent a name then say that's his wife or something similiar to this? All that was needed was a letter authorizing him to trade. Surely a man who supposedly pulled off the crime of the Century using a 'secret code', the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip ruse, not to mention successfully laundering this money that even today is unexplained doesn't 'hide' or 'divert' money in an account with his own name on it?
I just think everything needs to be looked at and all questions answered before rock solid conclusions be drawn. The question could be raised - why didn't Hauptmann do this earlier (post April 2nd)? Are we to assume the money before this time was legit? Or legit afterwards when in Jan '34 he opened a new brokerage account in his name only?
We're on two different sides of the street here Joe. I am satisfied the motive for this is protection of the money in the account. I stand by my post above based upon the greater weight of evidence and here's why...
Firstly, I will remind whoever is reading this that good liars tend to use a solid fact in order to substantiate an explanation. Excellent liars use a partial reason then rely on it as the only and absolute motivation to explain an act therefore omitting and hiding other undesirable reasons.
The man's name is on the account - there's nothing "clever" or "diversionary" concerning this. When he opened this account he specifically told them he wanted to protect the money from a civil action. Half truth? Perhaps, as I stated above he didn't owe that much - but just possibly he feared a larger payout if brought into Court.
What really strikes me as strange is, for some unknown reason, Hauptmann never paid off the full amount. In my opinion any man with secret resources would have called upon them to pay off this small debt rather then drag his feet and open oneself up to a Lawyer looking to seize or sue for assets - yet - that is what Hauptmann did here.
This account couldn't possibly have been created to 'hide' it from the Police. J. J. Faulker...now that's an example but not this.
All of the money deposited was clean, that is, none of it was ransom so if any did have its origins there it had been successfully washed. Additionally, Anna was endorsing the checks in her Maiden name and authorizing the trades. She was aware of the activity and the amounts involved.
The inference is that Hauptmann just exchanged the J.J. Faulkner loot (and the other 2 deposits), then hides it in this account with his name and address on it. That just doesn't add up. Maybe its the 'bank holiday' which spooks Hauptmann into thinking a closer look at the account might reveal he isn't in the US legally?
It should be remembered that Anna's bank account, despite marrying Hauptmann in Nov '25 remained "Anna Schoeffler" until Jan '28. And during this time Hauptmann was depositing his checks and cash into this same account. So these two were no strangers to doing this in the past and my guess is for exactly this reason. In fact, when asked why he switched his joint account in Central Bank to just "Anna Schoeffler" on March 25, 1933 this was the reason he gave. Even Agent Frank seemed to consider this as a possibility.
Of course none of this answers the question as to where this money is coming from but that was never my point. However, since the question has now led me there I will throw out some information that I don't think is totally covered in the Genau report which I have discovered from other sources.
Hauptmann seems to be using this stock account to trade for other people. This seems very odd and although records only seem to prove 4 or 5 occurrences these are discovered by the Police and never revealed by Hauptmann. I am quite sure there are more but Hauptmann, for some reason, despite it offering some explanation for some source of deposits just keeps quiet. (If I am missing something, which is easy to do, please point it out because I haven't found anything.) So we have some deposits, purchases, sales, and withdrawls which are made with other people's money. Now I say 'odd' above because I would think if Hauptmann has all of this unlaundered money the last thing he would be worried about is making a couple of bucks trading for other people.
The other thing, and this is important, is that cross-referencing this account with Hauptmann's logbook shows that Fisch was involved in the stock trading. In fact, the above mentioned account is referenced in Hauptmann's log showing their joint interests. For example, the brokerage sheets show the purchase of 100 or 200 share lots but the reference to these purchases in Hauptmann's log show a 50 and 100 share to his account and a 50 and 100 share to Fisch's account. There's another instance where a stock shows on the brokerage sheets that is credited solely to Fisch's account in Hauptmann's log.
So this shows all the money in this account did not originate from Hauptmann alone and that possibly another motive would be to place this in Anna's maiden name to protect it from investors and even from Fisch if and when the time came.
Some of this may be mentioned in Rab's research, or in the alternative, he may have some things related but that I haven't mentioned so I encourage everyone to read through his stuff. I started this post without ever intending to get this deep into it and haven't had a chance to review his material.
They looked at Anna's account and what she had - then worked their way from there. They really weren't looking as much to see where each penny had come from exactly. For example, they looked at her account records and saw she had $1345.00 saved prior to her marriage with Hauptmann.
I've tried to follow Hauptmann's log books the best I can to see what I could learn - I can't assume everything was logged there either - but its all I can go by aside from the Police reports.
It's from this log book one can see not only that Hauptmann was working but that he was lending money out for interest. The log shows where Hauptmann purchased a business in Jan '27 for $965.00 then quickly sells it to Deibig for $1300.00 in Feb '27. That's $335.00 in less then 30 days and it gives insight into Hauptmann's personality and mentality.
What the Police did take a look at was the net-worth just before March 1st and rationalize that Hauptmann was broke and therefore was motivated to commit this crime and then scrutinized all money post-April 2nd and deducting the amount from the known amount/assets prior thereto.
Here's the problem....
The Police (and some current researchers) tend to assign specific significance to certain actions Hauptmann made/took but ignore or claim there wasn't a reason for other actions which don't support their position. An example of this would be where mention in made concerning Hauptmann "having trouble" meeting the margin call on his stock account.
Why is this mentioned?
Because Hauptmann owed $74.89 and instead of paying this off he merely puts $50 into the account in May '31. This left him with very little money in the bank and the inference is that aside from his stock and mortgage he is flat broke - after all, he used most of his cash to buy his brand new car.
And following my logic above why aren't these people asking 'why' would someone so broke do this?
To go on a cross-country trip of course. Huh? So here's this guy who's just about broke, buys this car to ensure he's broke, quits his job to ensure zero cash coming in, puts all of his property in rented storage, then takes off for California from July to October '31 - during the depression.
Make any sense? To those wanting it to it must and they simply ignore it. Remember this guy was very frugal in the past but now is acting like he hit the lottery. It's not on the books but these are actions of a man who has just come into some money.
And also remembering that he owed Begg so very little with all of this money that appears in his account why doesn't he use it to pay it off? So we see a similar action concerning the margin call and this exemplifies my point above.... Especially when one considers upon his return from this trip he withdrawals $25 to pay the off the remaining debt to Carleton & Mott leaving a balance of $75.96 in his bank account.
I ask why, if he is broke, that he is so worried about this account? Why not sell the stock, meet the margin, and use this little profit supposedly so desperately needed? Why not sell the mortgage?
He rents a temporary place to stay (with what?) then later rents the Rauch Apartment which is higher then his last place (with what??), and gets his property out of storage (with what???).
Now are these really the actions of a broke, desperate, and down-on-his-luck man?
Do you think there is enough remaining evidence of BRH's pre-LKC life to go further with this? If Hauptmann was "enriched" prior to 32 and this was the result of an LKC related deal or some other illegal activity , is it really possible that neither Anna or Hans would not know something about it? I mean this expands the time frame of BRH's alternate income considerably. ow could he have kept this completely secret especially considering the long and intimate nature of a cross country trip?
If Hauptmann was "enriched" prior to 32 and this was the result of an LKC related deal or some other illegal activity , is it really possible that neither Anna or Hans would not know something about it? (Kevin)
He was still frugal on the trip and I wouldn't expect Kloppenberg to have any idea one way or another. It wasn't like he was throwing money around and of course what he sees is Hauptmann having recently purchased a brand new car - why would he expect him to be broke? Furthermore, the deal was to split the expenses and Hauptmann was holding Kloppenberg to the deal. He was the same way on his trip to Florida even arguing with Anna over a couple of dollars and refusing to do 'this or that' because it "cost too much."
See what I mean? One could make an opposite argument here and imply Hauptmann does not have the ransom yet because he isn't spending it in Florida, not one ransom note ever surfaced along the route and/or spots he visited, and that he is very frugal. Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to spend ransom? Why must the ransom only be spent in NY? What is going on here?
Should we ignore it or try to make sense of it?
As far as Anna goes... I don't think she was asking many questions and if she happened to then he would give her some explanation to satisfy it. Take the Post-April 2nd activity for example - she believed him and although he had shown her some large quantities of money there's no way I'll believe she knew that stash was in the garage.
I think the infamous "money in the trunk" may be the source of these funds but weren't from what Hauptmann claimed them to be. Just another 'cover story' which may have its origins rooted in some truth. And it may have been more like $2,000 but of course that's just my guess.
I just wanted to add that what I am writing above are my sincere thoughts concerning my personal evaluation of the matter after studying the logs and reports. As I read and re-read more I am very likely to learn and discover more that I am currently unaware of - its happened too many times to count. Also, that I am not a 'numbers cruncher' or anything like that. I don't want to come across as an absolute authority on these matters because I am not and while some people may like to be behind the podium, I am more comfortable sitting at a round-table debating and bouncing ideas off of each other.
Aside from Rab I don't know who else has taken as much time to look through and study this material. I note that his research mentions the log, account, and Fisch but that "no money changed hands" and its this and other things which would need to be debated further - I would certainly never say he's wrong, and without first understanding why he thinks this I don't see how anyone could.
And so I suppose my point is to keep this information in the back of one's mind as you read through my points.
Michael, you make some good points about Hauptmann's spending in 1931 although in my opinion, he was still optimistic about the value of his held stocks, not realizing they would essentially be worthless following the "aftercrash" of late 1931. It's this event which I think has to carry more weight in ultimately determining Hauptmann's actions and subsequent involvement in the kidnapping.
As well, Hauptmann's record keeping, which details the amounts of their weekly earnings deposits, began in 1927 and suddenly stops in July of 1930, as seen in one of his personal memo books. Given Hauptmann's penchant for meticulously and regularly noting each dollar coming in, does this perhaps indicate the probability of some significant and possibly illicit monetary event at this specific endpoint which suddenly negated the need for such a thorough week to week accounting? I mean, Hauptmann may not have been working steadily at this time, but certainly Anna was, so why no record of her earnings here?
A side note to Hauptmann's record keeping, which I think might also reveal much more about the man's personality and thought processes. Many of Hauptmann's memo book entries were written out in duplicate and from each copy, it's evident he took more time and used a more refined handwriting technique in the latter. Here he clearly shows some of the scope of variation which was noted by the trial handwriting experts who testified against him.
But what seems most unusual, is his capture of every minute detail from original to duplicate memo book copy, right down to the exact number of quotation marks in the July 1930 wage entries even though there were no accompanying figures for those lines, individual hand scores from card games, rough calculations in measuring a job, stroked out entries, etc. It's almost like he wanted to make a photocopy of each previous memo book, including every extraneous mundanity, but at the same time, wished to upgrade the appearance of the books with a nicer, more stylized form of handwriting.
Why did he make copies of these memo books?
To distance himself from what he considered substandard handwriting or handwriting that might incriminate him? If so, then why keep the original copy?
To have a second record of all accounting, stock transactions and names and addresses of friends and acquaintances in case one was destroyed or misplaced? If so, then why store both of them together in the same place?
And why such attention to even the most extraneous detail in copying one book to another?
Good to see that you have the logs too Joe. It makes me feel better to know someone is reading this and can scrutinize it with the material in hand...
Michael, you make some good points about Hauptmann's spending in 1931 although in my opinion, he was still optimistic about the value of his held stocks, not realizing they would essentially be worthless following the "aftercrash" of late 1931. (Joe)
I'm not so sure about this. Let me try to explain...
In 1929 Hauptmann had invested $2900 in stock. In 1930 he had to put another $1500 into his account to properly margin his holdings - now that's a total of $4400. On 1-1-31 his entire portfolio is worth only $2456 losing almost half already and he appears to have no steady (legitimate) work coming in. Most of the $1500 came from his savings account which then left a balance of $193.75 in that account as of July 1, 1930.
The decline continues right up until he buys the car and quits his job then takes the vacation. There just had to be another motive other then 'faith' that his stock investments were going to make a 180 degree turn. And why would he be off on a trip instead of being there to realize the gains he was sure were coming when the stock began to take off? His account at Carleton and Mott was absolutely inactive from Feb '31 through the end of the year and by Dec '31 his 50 shares of Warner Bros were only worth $125.... a fact I am quite sure that could not have surprised him.
Given his actions he must have had something in hand and/or guaranteed to him.
As well, Hauptmann's record keeping, which details the amounts of their weekly earnings deposits, began in 1927 and suddenly stops in July of 1930, as seen in one of his personal memo books. (Joe)
Even going to the notebooks, for example, double-check to see where Hauptmann entered the amount of bank and mortgage interest during the years 1926 through 1929. He seems to omit this. Furthermore, he doesn't figure into his net worth the $335.00 that he made when he sold the business I mentioned above in his end of the year totals. Additionally, he sometimes used round figures instead of actual figures which accounted for discrepancies when compared to the actual documentation. So its not as meticulous as Hauptmann is given credit for. I look at this and say to myself "ok this is what is known but what about what isn't?"
Now with the 'gap' in the notebook entries there is now no way anyone can conclude what monies where introduced into the household regardless of source. Guessing is the only way.
Once he starts his log book back up again is there a note of all the ransom money having been introduced into his household? No. Of course there are deposits of unknown origins which are attributed to ransom but this is a flawed assumption. As indicated above by using other people's money to invest - this fact isn't noted and it appears that Hauptmann is the source when he's not.
Furthermore, what other avenues of 'easy money' did Hauptmann exploit? We don't know but what we do know is that he was continuing this practice even with the fact he does appear to have some ransom money proceeds at the time.
Why did he make copies of these memo books? (Joe)
It seems to me that the "2nd Green Memo Book" (No Exhibit No.) was made to consolidate information from a couple of the other log books. As far as the handwriting goes...I would like to see what a Handwriting Expert would say about it. I think Script has already eliminated himself from giving a neutral observation so I don't trust anything he says at this point so it would have to be someone else.
I believe I saw comment about this somewhere else by (I think) Osborn but I am going from memory and want to wait until I once again find the reference.
One could make an opposite argument here and imply Hauptmann does not have the ransom yet because he isn't spending it in Florida, not one ransom note ever surfaced along the route and/or spots he visited, and that he is very frugal. Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to spend ransom? Why must the ransom only be spent in NY? What is going on here? (Michael)
I think one could only make this argument if they were to overlook the pattern of excessive personal item spending established by Hauptmann right after the ransom payment and which occured before the Florida trip. Or was this simply a means of wiping out what was left of the "trunk stash" for good measure, after quitting carpentry and before taking a much needed winter holiday?
Hauptmann exhibits an interesting blend of spending / frugality but I sense his favoring those purchases which tend to make him appear successful, a new American with the Midas Touch and even somewhat philanthropical towards his friends and acquaintances.
We don't know of any ransom money which might have been passed along the routes to and from or in Florida, just that none of it surfaced which might point towards a trail. This doesn't mean he didn't but I think it's a safe assumption he would have exercised some caution here and not left home with it.
And also remembering that he owed Begg so very little with all of this money that appears in his account why doesn't he use it to pay it off? So we see a similar action concerning the margin call and this exemplifies my point above.... Especially when one considers upon his return from this trip he withdrawals $25 to pay the off the remaining debt to Carleton & Mott leaving a balance of $75.96 in his bank account. (Michael)
The delayed and incomplete payment to Begg tells me more about Hauptmann's moral qualities than anything else. There is nothing to suggest he couldn't have paid off what was owed without appearing to be flush with cash and ripe for the picking in a lawsuit. What other excuse does he have here?
As far as Anna goes... I don't think she was asking many questions and if she happened to then he would give her some explanation to satisfy it. Take the Post-April 2nd activity for example - she believed him and although he had shown her some large quantities of money there's no way I'll believe she knew that stash was in the garage. (Michael)
I cannot believe Anna Hauptmann could have been so blissfully unaware of her husband's involvement in some way for close to three years. They lived together for 9 years before the arrest. Anna would always claim how close they were over that time and that if he was involved, she certainly would have known. Well, he certainly was involved from beginning to end and I've often wondered if she might well have acquired some of the same advanced skills in lying and deception demonstrated by her husband. I have other reasons to suspect Anna knew far more than she let on and I've posted some of these in the past but I think that topic deserves its own thread.
I think one could only make this argument if they were to overlook the pattern of excessive personal item spending established by Hauptmann right after the ransom payment and which occured before the Florida trip. (Joe)
I think the argument can still be made pointing to the purchase of a brand new car, the quitting the job, and the trip itself. It's an act which isn't consistent with his personality and neither are those purchases.
Still, why does he stay in Rauch's house I wonder? He's supposed to have all of this money at his disposal - why not move away from this source of stress?
This doesn't mean he didn't but I think it's a safe assumption he would have exercised some caution here and not left home with it. (Joe)
Of course it doesn't but very likely he didn't. There were counters assigned and who's only job was to check for ransom money at the U.S. Treasury. None were ever found there and they would have been turned over by the various Federal Reserves if missed by them. Now why you would think Hauptmann was willing to spend ransom in his own car in NYC but not during his trip to Florida needs to be explained to me so that I can fully understand this logic. Also, where was the money when he was gone? His garage and house were entered on various occasions by Schussler with Hauptmann's consent.
The delayed and incomplete payment to Begg tells me more about Hauptmann's moral qualities than anything else. There is nothing to suggest he couldn't have paid off what was owed without appearing to be flush with cash and ripe for the picking in a lawsuit. What other excuse does he have here? (Joe)
It just can't be for this reason.
He did the same thing with the margin call. He had funds available but didn't utilize them - why not? Because possibly he was short on available cash and wanted to hold off. Each time he had cash available it was slotted for some specific purpose. Assuming that Hauptmann had all of this ransom available to use as he saw fit may not be true - even if it was in his possession. There is other evidence of this but I'd rather hold off on presenting it since someone else pointed this out to me.
I cannot believe Anna Hauptmann could have been so blissfully unaware of her husband's involvement in some way for close to three years. (Joe)
No suspicions from me concerning Anna. She believed her husband wasn't cheating on her either.
I think the argument can still be made pointing to the purchase of a brand new car, the quitting the job, and the trip itself. (Michael)
Well, I can't picture Hauptmann not having been enriched considerably by the ransom payment so I guess that kind of sets my outlook here. Whatever he did for mad money in 1931, he certainly hit the jackpot in April of 1932.
Now why you would think Hauptmann was willing to spend ransom in his own car in NYC but not during his trip to Florida needs to be explained to me so that I can fully understand this logic. (Michael)
I guess I look at two distinct possibilities here with no clear winner, each one carrying its own inherent degree of safety and risk. If you're Hauptmann, you can spend ransom money along the route and believe there is less vigilance towards detection the further you get from the site of the ransom payment. Or you can feel the pressure of anticipating you might leave a money trail which later confirms your general movements, should you later become a suspect, hence leaving it at home.
Also, where was the money when he was gone? His garage and house were entered on various occasions by Schussler with Hauptmann's consent. (Michael)
I'm not convinced Schuessler had unfettered access with Haptmann's OK during the time the ransom money was hidden within the garage's framework. I don't think he would have had any issues about letting Schuessler come and go if and when the money was buried under the floorboards though, which is where I believe it was for most of it's captivity. I'm not sure about this point but was Hauptmann aware Schuessler was picking the lock and do we know when he started locking the garage?
He did the same thing with the margin call. He had funds available but didn't utilize them - why not? Because possibly he was short on available cash and wanted to hold off. (Michael)
I really don't see what you might call a trend here within the two scenarios and it's even larger stretch for me to believe he couldn't meet the Begg payment in full. During what period between April 1932 and let's say mid-1933, did Hauptmann's lifestyle show any sign of a cash shortage to prevent him from paying off Begg?
No suspicions from me concerning Anna. She believed her husband wasn't cheating on her either. (Michael)
And there are many who have no suspicions towards Hauptmann and the matter of his potential involvement in this case. Hard for me to believe someone who showed the kind of straightforward, no nonsense savvy of the post-arrest days in defense of her husband, did not notice even a red flag for over two years of living with someone involved in the kidnapping and extortion to the extent Hauptmann was.
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5