|
Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 4:55:43 GMT -5
[Originally posted on Lindykidnap May 28 2003. Replies are extracts from various follow-up posts addressing points raised by other posters.]
While I was at the archives recently, Mark found for me a report which listed - apparently - all the ransom bills found. The report lists a number of bills found after Hauptmann's arrest: two $5 bills, two $10 bills, two gold $20 bills and as late as May 1935 a bill of unrecorded denomination.
I have always said that $5 bills would have remained in circulation and I stick by that so I don't find their discovery after Hauptmann's arrest to be particularly meaningful. I have also always said that the discovery of gold notes after Hauptmann's arrest would be meaningful as these wouldn't remain in circulation and I don't back away from that assertion now. But none of the gold notes in this report were traced to a passing date and we know from the example of the Giordano gold note in February 1934 that sometimes people held on to gold notes for several months before depositing them. So it seems nothing can be determined.
But there was another report.
This one page FBI report summarises the investigation into three $10 gold notes. Interestingly, these notes don't appear on the first list. Investigation found that one of these bills was passed prior to Hauptmann's arrest. Another was discovered September 26 but it could not be traced to a passing date. The final bill - A58014567 - is different, though.
This $10 gold bill was discovered at the Corn and Exchange Bank at Fordham and Decatur in the Bronx on October 3 1934. It was traced to a Meat Market at Webster Avenue in the Bronx, run by a Mr Turchiarelli. This is meaningful because we know that many bills passed were tendered at meat and vegetable and fruit markets in the Bronx and Yorkville, both in 1933 and 1934. This was a known bill-passing method, making change from small purchases. We also know that Hauptmann himself passed bills in such establishments in August and September 1934. But this bill was passed to Mr Turchiarelli on Saturday, September 29, 10 days after Hauptmann's arrest.
The implication is clear. Somebody was passing ransom gold notes in the Bronx 10 days after Hauptmann's arrest and was doing so in the same manner that bills had been passed previously. This doesn't exonerate Hauptmann, because he followed the pattern of meat, vegetable and fruit market purchases himself in August/September 1934 and it seems unlikely that two unconnected people would be passing ransom money independently in the same locality via the same means.
Of course, more investigation is required. We must understand why these bills are on one FBI report and not on the other. We must double-check the dates. This can probably only be done by examining the detailed investigative reports which went into this summary, which are presumably at the FBI archives. But with the available evidence, the only conclusion I can draw is that Hauptmann was clearly not acting alone.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 5:09:46 GMT -5
"was this bill _definitely_ passed on Sept 29th?"
Yes. It was deposited to the bank on October 3 by Turchiarelli's wife. Why he remembered the date he received it but not the person, I don't know. The report does say, though, that when he gave the bill to his wife to take to the bank, he remarked to her that it might be a Lindbergh ransom bill, though he thought the ransom bills were "goldbacks". So it seems he for some reason took note of this specific bill. September 29th was a Saturday. Perhaps it was their custom to bank their weekend takings several days later, which is why he was so sure of the date. October 3 would have been Wednesday.
"Is it reasonable to conclude that all Lindy money would have stopped cold the day that Hauptmann was apprehended?"
No. But that is clearly not the point made. I have always said that one would expect $5 bills to show up because such remained in circulation. As I have pointed out time and again, gold notes did not, so there is no basis for deluding oneself with the notion that gold notes were floating around as general currency. The foundation of theories relating to the spending pattern of gold notes (in line with the original ransom sequence) is that the notes did not remain in circulation. All the available evidence is that they did not. They were immediately sent to the Federal Reserve, as we can see from the numerous bills which Hauptmann himself passed.
"We know of no commonality among the last bills passed, post-Sept 19th. No pattern of his personal appearance, no pattern of large bills for small purchases, etc."
No pattern is claimed. And I don't see the relevance. What we do know is that the bill was passed in a meat market, that is was passed in the Bronx and that this is the same type of establishment and same locality that Hauptmann used. And as to the size of the purchase, we're talking about 1934, if one spent $10 on meat a truck would have been needed to take it home.
One bill cannot be a pattern. I said that this bill is consistent with the pattern of previous (i.e. prior to Hauptmann's arrest) bill passings in that it was passed in the Bronx at the small market establishment. That is what is meaningful. It was passed in the same way Hauptmann passed bills. If this bill had been passed at Bloomingdales, I wouldn't even be discussing it. Another gold bill found after Hauptmann's arrest was traced to a passing date of between September 14 and 19. It was passed at a meat market also. But this time in Long Island.
The similarity is the type of establishment and the locality. I do not know why he remembered the note and not the customer but I have already made a suggestion in that regard. Perhaps we will know more when the detailed report is found. The deposit he made at the bank had 22 $10 bills so perhaps $10 bills were not that unusual for him. Another bill was found on September 19 in the National Bank of Yorkville. It had been passed between September 14 and 19 at the Geiger-Vienna Pastry Shop at 206 E 86th Street (that address again). Again a small establishment in the usual localities. But that one might well have been Hauptmann. Another $10 bill was discovered September 26 and traced to a meat market in Long Island. Perhaps that was Hauptmann, I don't know. The Gleiforsts lived on Long Island.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 5:57:50 GMT -5
"Or one can conclude that it would have been bizarre if, the moment BRH was arrested, that the money supply froze, given his level of spending in September."
There is no suggestion that it should have. One would expect - as did happen - $5 bills and non-gold $20 bills to be found. This was a gold note and they did not remain in circulation. We can see this from Hauptmann's own activity and his arrest. If one was passed in an establishment, it was sent to the bank and did not re-enter circulation. Neither is this just a day or two after Hauptmann's arrest, when one might suspect some confusion on Turchiarelli's part about the date. The bill was passed 10 days after his arrest.
In considering how we should regard reports of ransom money found after Hauptmann's arrest, I think it advisable that we take a consistent approach. We are told that the bills found after Hauptmann's arrest represent a "tapering off". Now this is a very specific allegation with of course the insinuation that what we are seeing is just the remnants of Hauptmann's own spending.
Firstly, we must consider that we are reliant on reports of bill discoveries. Those reports themselves seem to stop at the end of 1934, at least in any organised way. There are some sporadic and unconfirmed reports later, whether the newspaper report that Kel had kindly posted or an FBI report that I have of a bill - denomination not stated - apparently discovered in May 1935. So to claim that the flow of notes stopped is an assumption. The reports stop. That may be indicative of the flow stopping or just as indicative of us not having access to subsequent reports or of a lack of detailed investigative effort. There are suggestions that an order was issued to stop searching for ransom money. One must also doubt the continued participation of the banks during and after Hauptmann's trial. But these are side issues. Let us consider actual evidence.
I have a number of reports of ransom bills found after Hauptmann's arrest. We can see that from September 20 1934 until the end of December 1934, these reports list a total of nine ransom bills found in NYC. Six of these bills were gold notes, two of them gold twenties. The last bill found was a $20 gold bill traced to a grocery store in the Bronx. It was discovered December 18th. That's a long time to taper but perhaps not unprecedented and I have scant details from these reports with which to investigate further. But in defining something as "tapering off" is it not only fair that we look back on previous years? To investigate similar patterns and the amount of bills found at similar times?
Let us look back at the period September 20 to December 31 both in 1933 and 1932. In that period in 1933, only six ransom bills were discovered. In that period in 1932, fourteen ransom bills were discovered. So is there anything to suggest that the amount of bills found in 1934 represents a "tapering off". No. Because more were found in that period than were found in the same period the previous year. And it can hardly be expected that the banks were as conscientious in the period following Hauptmann's arrest.
I think it also illuminating to look at the ratio of gold notes found in those respective periods. Back in 1932, 28% of the ransom bills found in the September 20 to December 31 period were gold notes. In 1933, the percentage was 16%. But in 1934, it was a whopping 66%. Now does this represent these being the only bills left? Or that they were more noticeable and were not left in circulation? Or that because of their rarity they were noticed still by banks even when perhaps other ransom bills were not? It's an interesting consideration.
So, let me say again. There is no sign of any tapering off. It is the reports that taper and without further reports or exact details of when - or if - an order was given to stop searching, any accusations that the flow of bills itself tapered off are unfounded. We must not forget that it was the rarity of gold notes which led to Hauptmann's arrest and the fact that such notes did not remain in circulation. Whenever such a note went to a bank, it was sent to the Federal Reserve, and of the bills found after Hauptmann's arrest, six were discovered there. While one can never rule out that an establishment might have given out such a bill as change, the reports do not reflect any such instances from August 1934 and the necessity of giving a $10 bill in change in these small establishments in 1934 must have been a rarity in itself. The rarity of the gold notes and the fact that they were not redistributed by banks, ensured a short trail for each note and only two of those gold notes passed since August 1934 could not be traced beyond the bank. Some establishments may not have remembered who tendered the note or when, but the note could be traced to their deposits.
So the Turchiarelli bill - and those that followed - remain in my mind compelling evidence of someone other than Hauptmann passed ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 6:29:25 GMT -5
- While we perhaps have this view of the teller or cashier checking the bills, the reality is that the majority of gold notes were found at the Federal Reserve by a team of people dedicated to searching for the money.
- Even where the bills were checked in individual banks, it was usually done as a back office activity and it's highly unlikely that each individual teller was checking. The first poster version and the later booklet were only issued one copy to each bank so unless they copied it for each teller, it was probably a batch check at the end of the day I'd imagine.
- The poster [listing ransom bill numbers] was issued to all banks but the revised booklet was only issued in New York, I believe. And the rewards offered by Lindbergh and the Treasury Dept were only to bank tellers in NY. This might explain why none turned up in Florida during Hauptmann's trip there or perhaps he was just being cautious.
- Gold ransom notes were passed in December 1933 and January 1934 and he next one wasn't passed until August 1934. We have been able to see from that sequence that the notes were being passed in the original packing order despite the 6 month gap. If these ransom gold notes were circulating generally, is it not fair to ask why none either disturbed that sequence or turned up during the six months when it seems Hauptmann wasn't passing them? And why we had a similar six month gap in gold ransom notes in 1933. And why no notes turned up in NYC when Hauptmann was on vacation in Florida. These to me are fair questions because not only is there no evidence of recirculation, the evidence we have actually seems to point to the contrary.
- Nobody is disputing that people held on to gold notes and continued to hoard them. Nobody is even disputing that some of those notes would have been ransom notes. For example, there is a report of two ransom $20 gold notes deposited on April 30th 1935. But they were in a batch of other gold notes all deposited by one person. Also within the batch was a $10 gold note, 4 other $20 gold notes, a $50 gold note, 6 $100 gold notes and one $1000 gold note. So people did hang on to gold, without doubt. But hanging on to gold notes is not circulating them.
- The focus from late 1933 onwards had shifted from the ransom money overall to gold notes in particular and there were communications to the banks in this regard - forget the $5 bills, concentrate on the gold. When gold notes started reappearing in August 1934, this focus was again communicated to the banks in NYC and the banks around Yorkville were visited in order to press the point home. It was this focus and concentration which ultimately led to Hauptmann's capture.
- I don't think anyone really feared arrest for having gold notes. But I do think it is human nature not to want to get "stuck" with something. I think that there were probably two broad sections: people who wanted gold notes and hoarded them and people who wanted nothing to do with them in case they ended up losing out. We can see by the reaction of Lyle that the bills were a rarity and that he was suspicious - not of the man but in case it wasn't legitimate and that he would get stung for it. That's why he noted the license number. And if Lyons actually did get it in his pay, then what is his first reaction? To go to the bank and exchange it. He didn't want it either. That I think was the nature of the money at the time and why I believe - as well as the evidence of the gaps and the short investigative trails for each note - that it wasn't circulating.
Of the 90 $5 bills found in 1934, all but 4 were found at the Federal Reserve. So the banks weren't looking to any great degree and the banks didn't find them.
The last discovery of a $5 bill before Hauptmann's arrest was September 13 [1934]. One discovered after his arrest was traced to a passing date of September 15th. The last $5 bill discovered that year was found in October. But a number of $5 bills continued to turn up well into 1935.
Here are the statistics on numbers of $5 bills found in NYC:
Number of $5 bills found in 1932: 21 Number of $5 bills found in 1933: 6 Number of $5 bills found in 1934: 90
$5 bill discoveries by month in 1934:
Jan: 0 Feb: 1 Mar: 42 Apr: 16 May: 14 Jun: 5 Jul: 3 Aug: 4 Sep: 3 Oct: 2 Nov: 0 Oct: 0 Dec: 0
If we look at the statistics for NYC before May 1933, on individual finds, we see that there were 22 $5 bills, 9 $10 bills, 3 non-gold $20 bills and 0 gold $20 bills found. Leaving aside the gold $20 bills for a moment, we can see that 1.1% of all $5 bills had been found to that point, 0.6% of $10 bills and 1.2% of non-gold $20 bills. This seems to me to be a fairly even statistic, suggesting that to that point, no one bill was necessarily being discovered more that the other, just that more $5 bills were being passed because there were more of them in the ransom. Later, of course, we see many more individual $5 bills finds, but we must consider whether the large exchanges [e.g Faulkner] at the end of April and beginning of May 1933 meant that it was no longer necessary to pass gold bills one by one, at least until August/September 1933.
|
|