Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 11:27:23 GMT -5
[Originally posted on LindyKidnap November 3 2002.]
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.
I have posted previously on the believability of Hauptmann's account of finding the money: how is it possible to hit a box at the rear of a top shelf while removing a broom? I have also posted about the fact that Hauptmann's supposedly unique pattern of $10 gold certificate spending - a six month gap followed by a flurry of activity in uptown Manhattan and the Bronx - is exactly replicated in 1933. However, in many people's eyes, the Fisch story remains intact. Because there are so few evidentiary facts to support it, it becomes difficult to disprove it.
However, as has been noted previously, there is, hidden away in the FBI Summary Report, an intriguing theory. The theory is that the ransom bill found on August 20th 1934 - the first bill which Hauptmann admitted passing - was part of a sequence of $10 bills being spent in the order in which they were listed on the original packing listing prepared by JP Morgan. Obviously this, if true, would have devastating consequences for the Fisch story. Remember that Hauptmann claimed to have found the money soaking wet, he took it to his garage, separated it, dried it out in a basket and then wrapped it in newspaper and hid it. It would defy all odds and coincidences that he could do all that and then somehow choose as the first bill to spend the next in a sequence shown on the original ransom listing and stretching back into 1933. However, it has been impossible to prove or disprove this theory. Until now.
I am greatly indebted to Mark Falzini, who has found the relevant page of the ransom listing (page 49) and sent it to me. Here is a scan of the listing:
homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/Listing.JPG
The August 20th 1934 bill - A75893174 - is highlighted. Directly below that bill is A94624481. This bill was traced to January 17th 1934 and was the last $10 gold certificate [passed (of those found)] before the August 20th bill. Directly below is A34408398, traced to January 11th 1934. Below that, A76464756, traced to December 29th 1933. Then A13727291 dating to December 27th 1933. And finally, A72984929, traced to December 26th 1933 [and A76315177 also passed December 26th]. The most recent $10 bill found before that? A35186638 traced to June 10th 1933, a six month gap. Sound familiar? So, altogether, a sequence of [7] $10 bills, culminating in the August 20th bill passed by Hauptmann. The sequence is only punctuated by *01122111 found December 27th 1933.
But that is not all. A02441968, shown two places above the August 20th bill, was found August 30th (though suspected to have been deposited much earlier). A17385388, shown three places above, was found August 28th. So the pattern continued.
It should also be noted that of the [six] bills in the sequence prior to August 20th 1934, one was traced to Manhattan, one to Harlem and [four] to the Bronx. Sound familiar? Of the $10 bills that Hauptmann admitted spending, one was traced to Manhattan, one to Harlem, three to Yorkville and six to the Bronx.
It is impossible that Hauptmann could have found and treated the money as he claimed and then continued to spend it in its original packing sequence. There can only be one logical and rational conclusion. The Fisch story is just that: a story. A concoction. Hauptmann lied about how and when he came into possession of ransom money. The Fisch story falls.
Before the accusation is made, no this does not place Hauptmann on the ladder. But it is clear that his version of how he came into possession of the ransom money is a falsehood. Combined with his unexplained enrichment and the timing of that enrichment (from April 1932 onwards) the rational explanation for how he came into possession of ransom money is clear.
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.
I have posted previously on the believability of Hauptmann's account of finding the money: how is it possible to hit a box at the rear of a top shelf while removing a broom? I have also posted about the fact that Hauptmann's supposedly unique pattern of $10 gold certificate spending - a six month gap followed by a flurry of activity in uptown Manhattan and the Bronx - is exactly replicated in 1933. However, in many people's eyes, the Fisch story remains intact. Because there are so few evidentiary facts to support it, it becomes difficult to disprove it.
However, as has been noted previously, there is, hidden away in the FBI Summary Report, an intriguing theory. The theory is that the ransom bill found on August 20th 1934 - the first bill which Hauptmann admitted passing - was part of a sequence of $10 bills being spent in the order in which they were listed on the original packing listing prepared by JP Morgan. Obviously this, if true, would have devastating consequences for the Fisch story. Remember that Hauptmann claimed to have found the money soaking wet, he took it to his garage, separated it, dried it out in a basket and then wrapped it in newspaper and hid it. It would defy all odds and coincidences that he could do all that and then somehow choose as the first bill to spend the next in a sequence shown on the original ransom listing and stretching back into 1933. However, it has been impossible to prove or disprove this theory. Until now.
I am greatly indebted to Mark Falzini, who has found the relevant page of the ransom listing (page 49) and sent it to me. Here is a scan of the listing:
homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/Listing.JPG
The August 20th 1934 bill - A75893174 - is highlighted. Directly below that bill is A94624481. This bill was traced to January 17th 1934 and was the last $10 gold certificate [passed (of those found)] before the August 20th bill. Directly below is A34408398, traced to January 11th 1934. Below that, A76464756, traced to December 29th 1933. Then A13727291 dating to December 27th 1933. And finally, A72984929, traced to December 26th 1933 [and A76315177 also passed December 26th]. The most recent $10 bill found before that? A35186638 traced to June 10th 1933, a six month gap. Sound familiar? So, altogether, a sequence of [7] $10 bills, culminating in the August 20th bill passed by Hauptmann. The sequence is only punctuated by *01122111 found December 27th 1933.
But that is not all. A02441968, shown two places above the August 20th bill, was found August 30th (though suspected to have been deposited much earlier). A17385388, shown three places above, was found August 28th. So the pattern continued.
It should also be noted that of the [six] bills in the sequence prior to August 20th 1934, one was traced to Manhattan, one to Harlem and [four] to the Bronx. Sound familiar? Of the $10 bills that Hauptmann admitted spending, one was traced to Manhattan, one to Harlem, three to Yorkville and six to the Bronx.
It is impossible that Hauptmann could have found and treated the money as he claimed and then continued to spend it in its original packing sequence. There can only be one logical and rational conclusion. The Fisch story is just that: a story. A concoction. Hauptmann lied about how and when he came into possession of ransom money. The Fisch story falls.
Before the accusation is made, no this does not place Hauptmann on the ladder. But it is clear that his version of how he came into possession of the ransom money is a falsehood. Combined with his unexplained enrichment and the timing of that enrichment (from April 1932 onwards) the rational explanation for how he came into possession of ransom money is clear.