|
Post by rick on Mar 6, 2006 16:10:47 GMT -5
""The Fisch Story is the mainstay of the theory that Hauptmann was completely innocent of involvement in the crime. It is used to explain how and when Hauptmann came into possession of ransom money. The story is supported by Hauptmann's own account and the gap in the discovery of gold certificates between January and August 1934 and the apparent rush of spending during August/September 1934"".
Rab....maybe back in 1934-35 BRH claimed "total innocence" with the Fisch story, designated as such by Mr. Wilintz....but we are all more sopisticated in the 22nd century. After all, some persons, including Hans Kloppenberg said they actually saw a shoe box and were barred from saying so in the Trial under threat of arrest? Maybe Greta Henkel saw one too? And others.
The issue at hand today doesnt mutually exclude either Fisch or BRH....thats a red herring. More than likely the hoax includes them both as business partners and others who swear that these two did not meet until after 1 March 1932--a very convenient date not to have met yet with all the same friends. Maybe they did not want to be seen together any earlier?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2006 17:40:36 GMT -5
Rick you have already been given a Latin lesson, now I suspect you may receive an English lesson as well. Kloppenberg was not allowed to call the box specifically a shoe box but was allowed to testify that he saw a box. By the way how would Kloppenberg know it was a shoe box anyway if it was wrapped in paper and tied with string? The hoax you keep mentioning has now expanded to include: the Lindberghs, the Morrows, the metro law enforcement community, Condon, Hauptmann's Friends,the feds, and I can't even keep track of the rest. It might be less confusing to just tell us who wasn't in on it.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 6, 2006 17:47:53 GMT -5
Both would be far preferable to a lesson in manners?
Its not really about me, Kevin, its about Charlie Jr./
[Dave Wilintz would be proud to have your defense]
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 6, 2006 18:51:36 GMT -5
rick, i hope i can express a feeble thought here without the post police hyperventilating. Hans was told not to testify with the threat of being an accomplice and by that time i'm sure he knew they would fry him too. also reilly wanted anna to testify she had seen the box. both she and richard stated she hadn't. not too sneaky for the crime of the century
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Mar 6, 2006 23:02:20 GMT -5
Kathy...it has become common practice over the years to reprove every little shed of evidence against BRH with reams and reams of monologues. Nuance after nuance is explored to confirm the same point over and over again. Most of it is designed to discourage any open thinking "outside the box" because if it was worth consideration it would have been thought of years and years ago by someone else already. So==just color within the lines and make everyone else happy.....Its called the Earth is Flat Society. They are still accepting lifetime memberships. Every new idea or thought is dismissed as absurd almost before the ink is dry. The NJSP went to alot of trouble lowering the shelf down X number of inches so that Anna could see the shoe box? Hey, if Kloppenberg did not say shoebox then it must have just dissappered? I dont see how asleep at the switch were all these Germans anyway, here we are in the midst of a depression and they are going on vacations/ partying to the wee hours and driving cars to the beach? So where is all the moola coming from? Even before 3-1-32/ something doesnt add up and it not the fur business/
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 7, 2006 1:43:31 GMT -5
To Kathy, Rick Do you suppose they will go away if we ignore their insults? Usualy in 70 years legitimate historians can find some new discoveries, but these historians have not found one thing to improve their lame theory since 1934.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 7, 2006 7:25:26 GMT -5
"Its not really about me, Kevin, its about Charlie Jr./"
Please Rick don't insult me with that sophomoric trash, ITS ALL ABOUT YOU and you know it. Show one example of your real concern for Charles Jr. Is it when you call him a cripple or "deformed"? Is that your idea of being respectful and having manners?
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Mar 7, 2006 7:27:21 GMT -5
Probably we wont be so lucky? It must play hell trying to squirm and weasle out of every new and interesting revelation about CAL and his love life, or Dwight and his mental illness, or Fisch and his mony laundering or the Vesica pisces? Once you have staked your whole existance on The Earth as the Center of the Universe or The Lone Wolfe Theory then the code demands you defend it unto the Death. Who let the wolfes out/ woof?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 8, 2006 5:52:12 GMT -5
I think in assessing the evidence we have to beware of the motivations of witnesses on all sides. I don't find Kloppenburg's evidence convincing, neither does Hauptmann's account of discovering the shoebox at the back of a high shelf by poking it with a broom he was removing have any ring of truth to me.
The bottom line is that it's impossible to advance understanding of the case based on witnesses. Luciky, though, we have much in the way of documentary evidence and this is one of those instances. The spending pattern of the $10 gold certificates in 1933/34 in relation to the original packing sequence make it highly unlikely to me that the Fisch story has any basis in fact. No witnesses needed.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 8, 2006 8:16:25 GMT -5
Rab, i ahve a questio for you. do you think hauptman remembered that rainy day and decided to use it as alibi? it was comfirmed that the closet was leaking that day and realy if cleaning suplies were kept there why would he have any reason to go there. didn't he say he assumed that the box just contained papers? the story rings true to me didn' uhlig discover at the same time that fisch was a crook and they had both been swindled?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 8, 2006 8:17:49 GMT -5
Rab/ i agree...BRH was caught like a kid w/ both hands in the cookie jar pulling out Gold Certs and burying them in his garage and hiding them from Anna? Not the actions of an innocent man! BUT...this alone does not automatically give Fisch any free pass away from the LKC. Just because BRH was forced to lie his way out of possession of the ransom money doesnt exonerate Fisch as either the mastermind or Cemetery John. Fisch is up to his flappy ears in this case from all sides especially spending Gold Certs in 1933 and from Condons and Robert Riehls descriptions of CJ. Its still likely that BRH never saw Highfields or the Nursery and was the tail-end Charlie of the extortion hoax.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2006 8:50:39 GMT -5
That's very interesting Fred, that you believe that Hauptmann buried the money in the garage.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 8, 2006 18:02:25 GMT -5
Well, who else could have done that? If it was still in the shoe box I woulda said Fisch buried it? In addition, I would be the first to speculate that hiding the Lilliput German automatic WITH the ransom money is a direct connection to the hole in the back of Charlies head too. Seems perfectly logical to me? Why not? Maybe BRH was the designated baby sitter? Bruno did not want the money found or the gun found. {Maybe the gun was originally in the shoebox?} Oops, I forgot BRH got it from Hans Mueller his cousin.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2006 19:38:35 GMT -5
yeah, but what makes you feel the money was buried?
|
|
|
Post by Elyssa on Mar 8, 2006 20:43:14 GMT -5
Wasn't ransom money spent well after Hauptman was executed? I heard that on a television special a while back, sorry I can't remember what the name of the program was, but it said the Governor was notified and ordered the evidence destroyed. Does anyone have information on this.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 8, 2006 21:07:36 GMT -5
wasnt it was found in a clay pot or can uder the oiley sand, dats how it got the oel on it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 8, 2006 21:13:10 GMT -5
I never heard that before
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 8, 2006 23:53:48 GMT -5
To Kathy, Kevkon, Rick In 1932 an illegal German freelancing as a stockbrocker, and specialy holding other peoples money, would have either put the money under a floor board or buried it as he did.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 9, 2006 2:46:24 GMT -5
Some myths at work here. None of the money found in Hauptmann's garage was buried at the time it was found. One can't know whether it had been buried at some point in the past but it wasn't buried at the time of Hauptmann's arrest.
And to the question of whether Hauptmann remembered that rainy day, that's an interesting one. Because that Saturday was indeed very rainy (I checked the weather records). I'm unclear when the rainy Saturday came up in the evolution of the story i.e. was it something Hauptmann first said in his interrogations after the money was found or was it a later embellishment. Of course, it could be that the money got wet in the garage - who is to say? But the impossibility of the broom element and the spending in line with the packing order make it clear that it certainly didn't happen in the way Hauptmann said it did.
And for Kevin, I checked Turrou's book (Where My Shadow Falls) last night and he describes the crock as a dill pickle jar. However, he also incorrectly says that it contained money, which it didn't. His book generally is full of inaccuracies and is of course often wildly quoted out of context (see Kennedy).
Rab
|
|
|
Post by kathy for rab on Mar 9, 2006 6:52:37 GMT -5
i don't see how it can be confirmed in what order the money was spent. we don't know what happened to the money when condon handed it over. was it divided, counted stored, mved,etc, we don;t know how it was placed in the shoe box or if hauptamn and/or his wife "discovered" it and moved it. finally we don't know which bills were soggier than the others. the source may be flawed but i think RBH divided the money in accord with to wetness in several baskets to dry
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2006 7:57:13 GMT -5
That makes about 5 different descriptions of the container that I have heard so far. Why would anyone take wet money to a damp garage to dry it out? I think you would end up with some pretty moldy money.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for kelvon on Mar 9, 2006 9:32:50 GMT -5
if you think of the time of the year, its about fall when weather is usually the driest. also i would think that in order to have it dry quickest it would need to be seperated as much as possible and there probably wouldn't have been that much room in a small apt, especially with a baby crawling around, not to mention keeping it from anna. hauptamn bulit the garaGE SO MAYBE HE KNEW IT WASN'T AIR PROOF (IF THATS THE TERM)_ like a tobacco barn! the baskets he desc ribed were probably old fruit bushel baskets like people used for laundry years ago.just an idea.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2006 10:24:39 GMT -5
Yes Kathy, that is a good point. Hauptmann's garage is ventilated to some degree and the humidity could have been low at that time. On the other hand, the garage was not exactly waterproof and had a dirt floor with wood planks. But why not use the ideal location, the attic? Would that also not be more secure? I mean, think about this garage and having baskets of money drying out in it. The garage has windows and wouldn't the car be in there? It would be a nightmare trying to dry out all those bills and at the same time insuring no one looked in or entered. How would he explain to Anna that she was not to go in there? And then there is the issue of the sequential note spending which has to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 12, 2006 8:52:11 GMT -5
i don't see how it can be confirmed in what order the money was spent. I think you're missing the thrust of my post on this subject in the archive area. We do know in what order certain pockets of the ransom was spent because we have the investigate reports which trace ransom bills from the point of discovery back to the point of passing. It's important to realise that this relies on the particular circumstances of the gold certificates post-May 1933 in that they didn't circulate in the economy and they were less common and therefore easier to trace and easier for people to remember. Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 27, 2007 5:33:53 GMT -5
Here is a copy of Hauptmann's letter to Pinkus Fisch written on July 8, 1934. I can't remember who asked me to post this so forgive me for (both) forgetting and taking so long.
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on Nov 20, 2007 10:23:19 GMT -5
Just a little tidbit to pass along. It may be of no consequence, but I thought it interesting.
Do you remember this Solux Co. that Fisch formed? As I recall it had something to do with showing films in store windows or something like that? (I've gotten a little rusty on the case, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Did you know that there was a big-time studio in the area called Solax Studios? It was in operation from 1910 until the late teens. It started out in Flushing, NY, then built a $100,00 facility at Ft. Lee, NJ. Olga Petrova, John Barrymore & Ethel Barrymore were their biggest stars - and stars they were! No doubt people would have, at least vaguely, remembered the Solax name.
So, was Izzy trying to sell folks a 'Solax watch'?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 20, 2007 20:45:14 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solax_StudiosThis is interesting and by looking this up you've taught me some history I wasn't previously aware of. According to the link above this industry on the east coast began to decline in the 1920's... I like investigating stuff like this because one never knows where it might lead. www.fortleefilm.org/studios.htmlI have many (if not all) of the reports on Fisch. If you'd like me to look up something specific just let me know...
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on Nov 20, 2007 23:30:23 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to going back and reading all of the Ft. Lee Film Comission stuff.
When I ran across Solax, I was just looking for background info on a 'former-up-and-coming-film-star' character for this year's NaNoWriMo novel. Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 9:52:53 GMT -5
I am posting a picture here of State's exhibit #171 offered during Trial Testimony of page 1557. These are the shoes purchased with a $20 gold cert by Hauptmann after he claims he found the ransom money in a water soaked shoe box. jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/photos/shoes.jpgMichael, the condition of this shoe box is obviously a box that had been partially water soaked at one time. Is this the condition of that box when brought into court in 1935 or did this box get wet while it was kept in NJSP possession. Were Anna's shoes brand new looking in that box or had they been damaged by water like the box certainly is? I find the testimony about Exquisite Shoes and Jacobson's shoes being interchangeable to be rather weak and it should have been challenged by the defense especially if that box looked like that when brought into the court room. It is clearly a water damaged shoe box! I understand that companies have more than one name they sell under. They probably also have more than one box they use for shoes. How could Anna's new shoes have come in this Jacobson box and ended up water soaked like that without damage to the shoes?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2014 8:09:33 GMT -5
Were Anna's shoes brand new looking in that box or had they been damaged by water like the box certainly is? Cpl. Horn discovered the shoe box on a chair in the Hauptmann living room on 9-19-34. According to everything they were purchased on 9-7-34. There's no mention in his report about the box being wet, or showing signs of having been wet. Here is some of the documentation attached to both the box and shoes (3rd from Special Agent Seery written on 9-26 for the date of 9-19): Attachment Deleted*BTW: Check out the fact Hauptmann had both the Winter and Summer Bronx Phone books in his home. They contained Condon's phone number which was written in his closet completely eliminating any need for him to have written it there.
|
|