I am still working on this. I have some files but the rest aren't with me at the moment so I can only give you what I have found out so far.....
About three weeks before Dec. 6, 1933 Fisch requested her to type out two bills, for furs, to Isadore Fisch on the bill heads of Klar and Miller, on 28th or 24th st., one bill for $6000 and the other bill for $11,000. She also informed us that she met Hauptmann at Hunter's Island sometime after Fisch died, he inquired if she had made out the two bills for Fisch, she informed him that she had, he stated that he would come to her apartment and show her a book with items entered in same. Hauptmann later visited her and showed her a book containing notations of $6000 and $11000, informed her that he had given Fisch $7000. (Det. Sgt. Kelly, NJSP, 9-24-34)
So the "fake" company was: Klar & Miller
Other "purchase" by Fisch was on 8-11-33 where he paid $2 for a years subscription for the Fur Buyers News.
Believe it or not everything I am now researching I have in the past but have since forgotten or have gotten rusty on. Please bear with me.
Its an obvious ruse of some kind. Either Hauptmann was in on it or he was the intended victim. That's why I wrote in my earlier post these other transactions were real. For example:
It was learned at this time that Fisch had two transactions with this concern, namely: 8/30/33-ordered 300 shares Eitingon-Schild at $3.00. This order was not executed. 8/31/33-100 shares Truscon Steel at $9.00. This order was executed. The subject at this time paid $932.50 for this transaction, but Mr. Bader was unable to state whether this was in cash or in check. The subject at this time gave his address as 149 E. 127th st. and these transactions originated int he branch office of Ward-Gruver Co.....
Apparently, Fisch earned $14.75 in dividend on this stock and a check was sent to him on on 11-25-33 which he endorsed and deposited.
Here's something else of note:
As to the $1500.00 paid by Fisch t buy an interest in the pie business, Schlesser explained that the sum in question was paid, as he recalls, in three $500 bills which undoubtedly, in his opinion, were the proceeds of savings of about eight or nine hundred dollars from Fisch's more prosperous days in the fur business, as well as the proceeds of a sale of different pieces of fur which Fisch had retained after his withdrawal from the fur business. (Agent O'Donnell, (F)BI, 9-23-34)
Re: Fisch And Ransom Money « Reply #27 on Aug 15, 2008, 10:35am »
When Hauptmann met Fisch is another mystery. There was a "meeting" which everyone seemed to believe it was the first time they met. That was on 8-10-32. However, as Siglinde pointed out to me, Hauptmann had visited and opened his Steiner account on 8-8-32 and told Mulligan that he was a fur trapper and dealer. In Hauptmann's letter to Pinkus he says he met him in "1932."
"When he was shown the serial numbers and the figures 1928 he said that represented some money, probably a $500 bill, which had been given to him by Fisch; that someone said to him, "You have already said you didn't know Fisch until 1932", and he made the following comment: "Well, I'm now in the bag." I stated this should not be given publicity, and Mr. Clegg states they claim it will receive none." (Hoover to Tamm 9-25-34)
Also, in his 9-20-34 interview it says on page 47:
[Q]: This man Fisch, Isidore Fish, how long do you know Isidore Fisch?
I don't think so. I am working on finding the specifics and was posting off of my notes. I do believe, and I will find out, that Fishbein & Klar was real. I did find while looking last night a complete listing of the supposed items Fisch bought from Klar & Miller. A very elaborate and specific "hoax."
Maybe I am wrong here, but it seems like Fisch is working as Hauptmann's agent and not as an equal partner. (Kevin)
I remember Rab saying he felt Hauptmann was being duped by Fisch....
Here's something else to consider:
During the time he was with Fisch in business, Brush said he found him to be a likable sort of fellow and he felt Fisch had been hoodwinked by Schleser into entering the pie baking business. He says he believes when Fisch first came into the company in January, 1931 he, Fisch, was holding a position in some fur concern which netted him a salary of $80 to $100 a week; that because of his activities with Schleser and his probable neglect of his fur business duties he lost his position. (Agent O'Donnell, (F)BI, 9-27-34)
I a little confused, I thought that a payment wasn't actually made. was I reading that wrong? Still love to know what some professional cons would make out of all of this. Finance has never been my strong suit and Dave has a very good point regarding the naivety of law abiders.
Police were running down all the items in Hauptmann's ledger and then anything else they discovered along the way. While they discovered that Klar & Miller was most definitely fictitious, it was also discovered that Fishbein & Klar was real and had purchased furs from Fisch in August. This company would later break up once Fishbein died in December '33. It was explained to the Police that Uhlig had once worked for this company and was instrumental in creating the sale. According to the log a net profit was earned of about $1600 after deducting the purchase price. Additionally, only 1600 of the 2000 Hudson Seal skins were sold.
Interviewed Harry Klar at the above address, where he is engaged in the manufacture of fur toys, and he advised that he purchased a package of cat skins from Fisch in August, 1933, and that it was the only transaction he ever had with Fisch; (Agent Leslie 10-13-34)
Here's the problem... Cat skins aren't Hudson Seal skins. So another discrepancy to consider. Additionally, Fisch did buy 100 Hudson Seal Skins from Harry Kaufman on 8-11-33, but for $1.30 each. The $130 Fisch paid was in cash.....The is at variance with the ledger which has these skins being purchased in bulk for $5.50.
It looks like Rab is right. Unless Hauptmann is in on it then Fisch is inflating the figures at the very least. However, he is spending and making money - just not at the figures recorded in the ledger. But considering this... how does Schlesser so easily dupe Fisch if Fisch is duping Hauptmann....the supposed Lone-Wolf Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping?
Personal friend to Fisch Henry Gewurz had this to say about him:
....that while Fisch appeared dumb looking he was a shrewd business man and knew his skins being able to identify same by the feel with his eyes closed......
.....Gewurz also stated that he never knew Fisch to be broke, did not ever hear that Fisch ever slept on park benches, etc. (Det. Sgt. Haussling, NJSP, 11-9-34)
Ok, but who comes out ahead? What did Fisch have in the end? If he's conning Hauptmann, how did Hauptmann end up with with the right cards? What's with the worthless furs left behind? Is it not possible that these figures and ledger entries are nothing more than a means for Hauptmann to disperse and clean up the ransom money via Fisch by inflating purchases and creating fraudulent transactions?
Bottom line here is that Hauptmann seemed blissfully unaware of anything that was happening on the fur trading side of the business. Fisch readily jumped into the stock trading with both feet and there are great records of this, yet Hauptmann only complains about non-existent fur transactions and Fisch's supposed vagaries after the fact when he is pressed to explain enrichment he can't account for. Given his greed, I find this a little incredible. If you ask me, the whole fur trading exercise covered a collaborative money-laundering scheme from it's inception. Hey, and if they did happen to make a few bucks with legitimate fur transactions, so much the better, as over time, this would only help to dilute the impact of the money laundering, gradually making everything appear to be on the up and up.
I tend to agree with you, Joe. It certainly seems like a sham to hide money and I still fail to see any evidence that Fisch came out ahead or equal to Hauptmann, ledgers aside. My only reservation is regarding the process of money "laundering". Most laundering I know about pertains to finding ways to legitimize an illegitimate income. In this case however, there is an added element to consider; the money was essentially marked. I know that in such cases often the holder of the marked money must sell it at a discount to someone who has the resources to get rid of it. My question is how where these transactions by Hauptmann and Fisch conducive to getting rid of the LKC money? Was there something about this trading that allowed the recorded bills to slip under the wire?
Fisch told Pinkus he was in business with Hauptmann and that his share of the business was worth well over $10,000. I don't know if that minuses what he owed everyone else he borrowed from or not, but if it does then this figure is quite telling.
Remember, the Authorities did not want to hear from witnesses that a partnership existed, even though they knew one did, and that Fisch was a man who had any amount of money. They liked the park bench, sickly, broken down, and penniless Fisch stories.
If he's conning Hauptmann, how did Hauptmann end up with with the right cards? (Kevin)
Not sure what you mean.
What's with the worthless furs left behind? (Kevin)
Not worthless, just not worth what Hauptmann claims Fisch told him they were worth.
Is it not possible that these figures and ledger entries are nothing more than a means for Hauptmann to disperse and clean up the ransom money via Fisch by inflating purchases and creating fraudulent transactions? (Kevin)
Quite possibly so. But if this is the case then Fisch is in it up to his eyeballs. It was Fisch, not Hauptmann, who approached Helfert to create the fictitious bill heads and inventory. Hauptmann only after the fact asked her if she had done this for him. Exactly how Hauptmann discovered who did it I have yet to discover....unless Fisch told him. I will keep searching.
Just like the actual "kidnap" Hauptmann could not have done this by himself. And if Fisch isn't duping Hauptmann then its both of them doing this to "legitimize" their numbers, and possibly explain their wealth.
Before Fisch left for Germany he went out of his way to repay Motzer the $500 he was loaned and offered Mohrdieck the $800 he owed him. This is something else to consider.
Additionally, Hewitt too believed Schlesser was swindling Fisch as it related to the Pie Company.
But here again, Fisch appears to be a man of many faces. Broke and without means but absolutely trustworthy, a savvy con-artist to some, and a shrewd business man with money to others.
Would Fisch have told his brother about the business if he was swindling Hauptmann? For what purpose? If it was all a fraud his brother is off on a wild goose chase for no reason other then to learn his brother was a cheat. However, if the net worth are the proceeds from laundered ransom money then his share is very real.
Next, why did Hauptmann run around with Uhlig searching for the "missing" furs and money like his as* was on fire if he knew none of it were true? Possibly to make claim to all remaining monies and not to share it with Pinkus or any of Fisch's surviving family. Was it all an act?
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2008 16:28:34 GMT -5 by Michael
Ok, but what did Fisch have in the end to show for his partnership? I mean what was left in his estate? Did Fisch display a marked improvement in his lifestyle at the same time Hauptmann did? I guess where I am getting hung up here is that while I don't doubt these recorded transactions , all that really matters in the end is who gained and who didn't. All I hear regarding Fisch is he might have this much or someone said this or that. We know what Hauptmann had and spent, what was Fisch's take?
Ok, but what did Fisch have in the end to show for his partnership? (Kevin)
Just off of the top of my head:
$25 he sent home to his family.
$500 he gave to Motzer.
$100 he gave to Steinweg.
$2000 Hauptmann gave to him.
$207.00 he used to buy from Deifik & Preufer.
$163.20 he used to buy from Schiller Trading Company.
$932.50 he used to buy from Ward-Gruver Co. buys 100 shares (stock) of Truscan Steel.
$15,000 in Ransom money he left behind with Hauptmann.
I could keep going if I go report by report which I know will yield more money. But of course it doesn't mean all of it came from the partnership, just as all the money Hauptmann had can't be assigned to that either.
It was a perfect situation for Fisch to leave the country only with what he had with him and for everyone to say he had nothing despite what he told his brother to the contrary. Since dead men tell no tales and we know what Hauptmann was saying....are we to assume nothing is attributable to Fisch even though we actually do have amounts that are?
Why would he leave money behind for a one way trip? I'm not challenging you Michael, it's just that I can see how Hauptmann gained financially and personally, but I don't see the same with Fisch. For me to believe Fisch was an equal partner with BRH , I'd like to see something other than transactions. If you have money, you tend to spend it. We see that with Hauptmann's purchases and actions, but what about Fisch?
I don't mind any challenges really. There's still a lot up for debate and this is one way to get through it....
Why would he leave money behind for a one way trip? (Kevin)
He expected to return. Round trip tickets and was telling some he expected to be cured in Germany.
I see evidence of spending and money. Where are these large sums coming from if Fisch is so poor he's sleeping on park benches? To this day it appears the $100 he gave Steinweg was ransom money and that amount did not come from Hauptmann.
There's more then what I listed... If you want me to I will do more research to see what other amounts he's spending. Of course one could claim he's being bank-rolled by Hauptmann, or even something else for that matter.
The way I see it, if Fisch was a partner to Hauptmann then he was in all the way and from the beginning. No way is someone getting involved after the fact given the notoriety of the crime and the ransom money. It's just to hot to handle as a straight business arrangement. There would have to be a stronger tie. Both Hauptmann and Fisch seem to be street savvy, they would know what's going on and the risks.
The way I see it, if Fisch was a partner to Hauptmann then he was in all the way and from the beginning. (Kevin)
Obviously possible. If this is the case they kept their relationship extremely quiet. Fisch did seem to have this ability by keeping those sources of money away from one another - however - at some point people began to know there was a relationship between the two. What would the motive be to keep it quiet then allow it to become public knowledge?
Also, depending on who you believe, Fisch did deal in "hot" money. This being the case, then its quite necessary for either Fisch to be absolutely 100% trustworthy to Hauptmann or he wasn't being told the source of the funds.
Either way, its my opinion that Fisch has a portion of Ransom Money that is his. I do not believe at this point that Hauptmann had no idea what it was. It's also obvious to me that once Fisch leaves then the money is being laundered differently, that is, Hauptmann himself is spending the money himself which is beyond reckless, which of course, leads Police directly to his doorstep.
This brings me to the irresistible possibility that had Fisch not gone to Germany Hauptmann would never have been arrested.
I don't think it possible for Fisch to be ignorant of the source of the funds. I doubt anyone in the metro area could be, let alone someone who deals in illegal funds. I have often wondered how possible it was to clean up and disburse this money abroad or in Germany to be precise. Given the ethnic background of those involved and their ties to the old country it has always seemed as distinct possibility to me. If so, my next question would be could ( or would) that money stay out of the US Treasury?
Given the overwhelming probability that Hauptmann had possession of the ransom money from the night of April 2, 1932 and up to the point of Fisch's departure for Germany in December 1933, I'd say it would be a miracle if Fisch had been totally oblivious to his close friend and business partner's sudden enrichment and display of wealth. Fisch on the other hand doesn't seem to have been the type to flaunt his wealth, unless he was half in the bag, as he demonstrated by pulling out a sheaf of bills and propositioning Katie Frederickson to go downtown and "raise the roof" off some joint.
He also had a seriously deteriorating medical condition, a gambling problem and I wouldn't at all be surprised if he was self-medicating himself with booze and narcotics from his contacts on the street. Money slips through fingers like water under these conditions.
From the FBI Summary Report, James McWhan's description of the the shabbily-dressed individual who tried to pass $500 worth of $5 bills at his railroad station ticket counter, sounds very much like Fisch. In my opinion, this was only one type of brazen attempt he would have made in trying to dispose of the hot loot.
I don't believe the fact if was Lindbergh ransom loot could have been hidden, especially if Hauptmann intended to launder it for the purpose of collaborative "legitimate" investing with Fisch. It would be a little like not telling your friend that the car he was driving you in had no brakes. Ludovic Kennedy actually provides good insight into the financial affairs of both Hauptmann and Fisch during this time frame although ultimately, he endeavours to paint Hautpmann only as a poor unfortunate sucker, reeled in by his partner.
In my estimation, that critical time frame between discovery of Fisch's death in which Hauptmann and Pinkus Fisch exchanged letters of intent, is very telling. Here I see Hauptmann attempting to put a lid on something that might well explode in his face, while at the same time, attempting to wrest every dollar from Fisch's estate he could "account" for. Here his greed rises to the surface in much the same way his proclivity for risk taking, (not to mention the fact he was strapped for cash) outstripped common sense during his August and September 1934 ransom bill passings.
It doesn't exactly fit in with Schoenfeld's portrait of the kidnapper / extortionist, does it? A truly secretive individual who trusts no one but himself. For my two cents worth, I believe Fisch and Hauptmann "played each other" surreptitiously and that the partnership was a mildly antagonistic one on the inside track. Both were classic risk takers at the risk of catastrophe and I tend to side with opinion that Fisch was also aware of Hauptmann being in the country illegally and that he used this to his advantage in cementing the partnership, in much the same way Anna later used her knowledge of her husband's crime to rid herself of his philandering and cement their relationship with an eternal vow of secrecy.
At the same time, Fisch who was conning his friends, was being conned by those higher up in the food chain. All criminals are patently stupid and most are greedy and take large risks, despite the elaborate deceptions they believe they're capable of maintaining. I just don't think Hauptmann could keep this secret from his close friend and business partner despite the fact he probably would have preferred to. And I can't imagine Fisch passing up the opportunity here to break free of his hard luck and failing health once and for all.
You may have it right, Joe. Personally, I just want to stick with the mechanics of the money disbursement and so-called partnership. I still don't see how the money is being "cleaned" on a larger scale than allowed by individual purchases at retailers. And I still can't make much sense out of a "partnership" which is based on two entirely different avenues of investment and little or no interaction. What's the point? Also, if Hauptmann has found an effective way to exchange blood money for clean, why doesn't he get rid of all of it ASAP? And if he has found some way to make short term money through investments during a recession, wouldn't he want to utilize all of the cash on hand for a higher yield. Money in an oil can doesn't earn very much. There has to be a method to this madness, I just don't see it.
Also, and this may be my lack of knowledge in the finance dept., but do you think that there is any connection between Fisch's investment activity in August 1933 and Hauptmann's absence of the same?
There's a lot to consider. If Fisch is doing what he's doing on paper to explain "clean" money then it substitutes cash on hand obtained from another (bad) source. But who is this done for? The Authorities?
Personally, I still believe people were paid up front and the ransom is in addition to it. As far as the ransom goes, I have always been of the opinion that at least (3) people had a finger in the pie. If you notice that when Hauptmann goes to Florida, he doesn't take ransom - then - when Fisch goes he doesn't take ransom either. I do believe he gave Steinweg ransom money.
We can guess that money slipped through the Federal Reserve and then through the Treasury. Or we can also consider what Uhlig would later tell Hoffman - that it was burned. There are a whole host of "suppositions" to factor in.
As far as "bringing people in" don't you believe the Needle Salesman, Scissors Grinder, Lady @ Tuckahoe, Perrone, etc. were "brought in?" Here we could have a situation where someone doesn't know the "hot" money angle and brings in person(s) they believe they can trust.
Everyone at Knickerbocker Pie Co. loved Fisch. The running joke was that when the pay was behind, if Fisch showed up, they would be getting their money - and thats what always happened.
Last Edit: Aug 26, 2008 16:47:16 GMT -5 by Michael
Like they say ; "Two can keep a secret if one is dead".
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Also in regard to Hauptmann and money. If he was "prepaid" why is there no record of it in his listomania? Why take out money to buy the car? I still wonder why he has money in an oil can if he had a large scale method of getting rid of it. And then there is the sequential spending to consider. Another thing, I was going over Rab's work on the finances. Pretty amazing stuff and more to the point, it must be incorporated into any theory of Fisch and Hauptmann.
Michael--do you have any evidence connecting any counterfeit money to either BRH or Fisch? Money laundering is always a necessity for pushing the counterfeit money out the door--like a stock account, for instance, or fake Pie Company could come in handy?
American Astrology in their fictional account "The Ladder Mystery" referred to BRH and Fisch as "shovers of queer"?
This would also make a nice connection to the Suicide Sanborns (Bob Conroy and Rosemary) that were found shot to death after Big Al Capone implicated them in the kidnap?
Money laundering is always a necessity for pushing the counterfeit money out the door--like a stock account, for instance, or fake Pie Company could come in handy? Rick
Is that fake pies or a fake company?
Seriously, how is a fixed entity like a company good for counterfeit or illegal currency distribution? Don't you want to avoid being traced at all costs? That's what bothers me about the stock purchases as a means to get rid of the "blood money". It would be easily traced back to BRH. A company or investment scheme is only good for laundering illegally gained money that is not traceable, like non reported income or the profit from an illegal enterprise. There has to be some other means at work in this case.
Kevin: Seriously, how is a fixed entity like a company good for counterfeit or illegal currency distribution? Don't you want to avoid being traced at all costs? That's what bothers me about the stock purchases as a means to get rid of the "blood money". It would be easily traced back to BRH. A company or investment scheme is only good for laundering illegally gained money that is not traceable, like non reported income or the profit from an illegal enterprise. There has to be some other means at work in this case.
Kevin, I cant be an expert on both holds AND money laundering!
I always had the notion that Fisch's primary expertise was money laundering? There were even some reports that he bought hot money on the Street for 50 cents on the dollar? Someone in a pool hall or tavern? [Theon Wright?]
I agree, someone must have been paying both Fisch and BRH, even before 1st March 1932, for some illegal activity--why not money laundering? Neither of them seems to want to actually do any work. BRH likes going on vacations?
What IS the best way to launder money? Drive cross country?
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