|
Post by Rab on Jun 9, 2009 15:09:43 GMT -5
Apologies for the delay - have been busy at work.
Many thanks as always to Siglinde for her valuable material. I do think we need to elaborate on it further by examining Fisch's finances as far back as possible prior to the kidnapping. Just as with Hauptmann, I think it is the transition of his financial situation from pre- to post-1932 that is meaningful.
So what do we know of Fisch. Well he was a furrier and over time would have made some money from that. But his declining health would have impacted his earning power somewhat, since he by some accounts couldn't handle the refrigerated conditions. However, he wasn't in poor health forever so presumably had some good years when he made money.
We also know he invested in some businesses and real estate though none of those investments seemed to bring much if any return. In fact they just seemed to get him into debt.
We also know he borrowed money from people, particularly Mrs Hile. Some of that money he used to pay other debts but perhaps that doesn't account for everything.
And we know he was a conman. We know from the forged fur receipts that he was conning Hauptmann. My belief is that the receipts represented security on investments Hauptmann made in the stock market for Fisch at Fisch's urging but crucially with Hauptmann's money. There is evidence too of fraudulent activities in relation to the pie company and in his dealings with Motzer.
So to specifics. Well it's clear from Siglinde's analysis that there is some amount of borrowing money to pay other debts, for example money borrowed from Mrs Hile in August 1932 and then a repayment to Motzer in the same amount a week or so later. I think this is some evidence of my theory that at least some of the money passing through Fisch was essentially a variety of Ponzi scheme. He was constantly coming up with schemes which allowed him to borrow money but in general that money went to pay off other people he already owed money to and no doubt to some degree to cover living expenses.
However, there are some unexplained transactions. A series of fur purchases in August 1933 amounting to some $500 and at the end of the same month a dip into the stock market for over $900. So where did this $1,400 or so come from in that month? Given Fisch's failing health at that time it's difficult to think that these investments were the result of profits made from his furrier profession. Also much anecdotal evidence (by which I mean hardly evidence at all) points to Fisch being very poor around this time, unable to pay his lodge dues and generally reliant on the charity of others. So something certainly doesn't chime. We need to dig more deeply into these circumstances. Any takers?
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2009 18:19:19 GMT -5
I am game Rab.
Why don't you start back as far as you like. The way my mind works I will have to see something posted and the assertion made about it. Then I would have to go to my records for support or dispute concerning its source. Or if anyone has another way to go about this I am definitely open minded concerning how get started.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Jun 17, 2009 5:28:30 GMT -5
Just checking in to say that I have been doing some work on this and hope to have something to post in the next week or so.
Rab
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2009 21:48:08 GMT -5
How did Fisch pay for his ticket to Germany and if from BRH, how did he get the money?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2010 7:06:27 GMT -5
Interesting response by the Governor to a letter from someone claiming that Fisch had a secretary: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Nov 22, 2010 14:21:37 GMT -5
i know a jewish society in new york paid for his headstone when he died
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2010 7:04:28 GMT -5
Certainly. It was one of the benefits of membership.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Nov 30, 2010 9:34:53 GMT -5
he was dead broke mike
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2010 19:02:57 GMT -5
Was that before or after he paid for his dancing lessons?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 1, 2010 7:41:47 GMT -5
id like to see him dance with TB.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2010 17:41:54 GMT -5
Well he took the lessons AND paid for them: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 1, 2010 18:26:57 GMT -5
what year? if had all this money he would have got medical treatment in this country instead going to europe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2010 7:11:19 GMT -5
Dancing: She stated that Fisch was always accompanied by Uhlig whenever there was a party and at first Fisch was unable to dance, but she clearly recalls that Fisch took dancing lessons and became very adept at the tango, so much in fact that he at times acted as instructor at the school at which he had learned to dance......[Sgt. Haussling, NJSP 11-34 Report] Treatment: Off the top of my head... He had seen (3) Doctors. Finklestein, Speigal, and Becker. Dr. Speigal treated saw (4) times in '31 and he paid $5 cash for each visit. He saw him again in '33, asked him if he had money for the hospital to which Fisch replied "yes." X-rays of Fisch's chest were taken in 6-32. Don't forget that Fisch went on "vacation" in September '33 at White Sulphur Springs for (3) weeks to celebrate the Jewish holidays. That cost him $12 a week!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 2, 2010 7:57:43 GMT -5
where was all this money in germany? i saw no evidence anyway that he had nothing to do with this crime. he was hauptmanns smoke screen
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2010 18:00:23 GMT -5
The German Newspapers were reporting Pinkus got much of it. Their source was supposedly the Father.
There's no doubt in my mind that Fisch is involved - at the very least an accessory after the fact. I have some more information to support this which is in addition to Lloyd's new information from Breckenridge.
We may all be dead before this book comes out though... I am still on the 2nd chapter and this has nothing to do with Fisch. If anyone knows a magazine that might be interested in breaking up one chapter a year let me know. Because of the time this is taking that would be a great fit for me. Otherwise, I am still moving along the best I can towards a book.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 2, 2010 20:16:56 GMT -5
yes but fisches family and sister hanna denied isidor gave them large sums of money. his friend uhling said on the stand that ficsh was bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2010 8:36:16 GMT -5
Yes they did. Was it because it was true, or they were like their Brother? They were coming over here looking for more, and they did get something...just not from Izzy but from NJ.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 4, 2010 12:41:08 GMT -5
mike your trying to tell me that fisch had money and the njsp paid the family to testify that he didnt? his own friend ulig said he didnt. his sister said he didnt. where was this so called money? i never saw any evidence that fisch was involved in the crime. i have a newspaper photo of them strolling down the atlantic city boardwalk in a cart, if thats what you mean of being paid off
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2010 8:54:05 GMT -5
Sure he had money. The only point of debate is where is all came from. He paid for Uhlig's trip to Germany. There's plenty of evidence that he was involved. At the very least after the fact.
Then there's other stuff which was omitted, buried, or ignored. Parker was right when he said that if any investigation started to create or lead to suspicion involving Fisch - it ended. All one needs to do is see how underhandedly the State portrayed his partnership with Hauptmann. Wilentz knew it existed, had proof of it which he withheld, then tried to sell to the Jury that Hauptmann was lying about it. One of his OWN witnesses let the cat out of the bag and forever banished his name from the Halls of Heros.
Bubble gum and shoe strings this Case was based. If you don't have a Case then you do not present it. You don't "fudge" things, hide things, or feign ignorance - just to get a conviction.
Fisch was good at what he did. To some he was one type but to others a completely different one. He didn't like women, yet, he's propositioning Mrs. Fredrickson. Some would swear he didn't dance, yet, there's proof he's teaching people the tango. He's dirt poor and sleeping on park benches, yet, he's on vacation in White Sulphur Springs for 3 weeks at $12 per week!
This is when people were STARVING and standing in bread lines just to eat for the day. And people who were working didn't even average 1 dollar a day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2010 9:13:22 GMT -5
Isidor wanted to do business with the man Hauptmann, and as this man had some money Isidor told him how easily he could make a lot of money in the fur trade. He let himself be persuaded and commenced to do business with Isidor. However, Isidor had borrowed money from everybody. He was always boasting that he $29,000 from Hauptmann. Since I wrote the letter to Erich, many people have turned up from whom he borrowed money. He incited his acquaintances against each other, so that they did not speak to each other about their private affairs and consequently it was possible from him to borrow money from each of them. Now of course they would all like to tear the fellow to pieces, if they only had him there. (Uhlig to Borman Letter, 10-11-34)
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 5, 2010 22:12:52 GMT -5
mike alot of people including his sister said he was low on funds. i thought you would have jumped on the claim that fisch was murdered. that came out of germany when he died
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2010 7:58:25 GMT -5
Surely. Many people said he was poor, and others said he wasn't. The truth is what the facts indicate.
As far as his death is concerned. Condon was the one who said he was murdered. I know they were ready to exhume the body in Germany if need be. In my mind, the evidence is quite clear that he suffered from TB for years. I think if someone was going to murder him it would have been in America - not Germany. However, he bought round trip tickets to Germany so he didn't intend to die over there. If you read Uhlig's file that I have assembled, Fisch even tried to hide how sick he was.
That was his nature.
Steve, while there isn't exactly a landslide of info on Fisch, I believe I probably have most of it having even accumulated notes written in the margins of trial transcripts by certain people who investigated the Case. What I don't have is probably sitting in someone's attic somewhere.
While a certain degree of speculation is required, that speculation is really about the hows, whys, and wheres..... not whether or not he had money - because he always did regardless of how he represented himself. And if he needed money - then he knew how to get it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 6, 2010 9:42:21 GMT -5
i read somewhere that some people in germany said it first
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2010 11:07:51 GMT -5
It's possible this came out of Germany first but I'd like to see the source so I can compare the two. Condon did keep his ear to the wall in order to insert things into his stories to sound more believable. This could be yet another example of this. He was certainly attempting to protect Hauptmann before Flemington and inserted Fisch several times into the conversation when/where he could.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 7, 2010 14:08:41 GMT -5
i dont think he was protecting hauptmann, maybe himself
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2010 7:10:49 GMT -5
This is interesting Steve....
So he's injecting Fisch in order to protect himself? Is that to protect Hauptmann so that in the end that protects himself? Did he pretend Cemetery John was not Hauptmann to protect himself? Did he testify he was to protect himself?
Did he proclaim to the Press there were (3) people involved to protect himself? Did he say Cemetery John had a "Mutton Chop" Hand to protect himself? When he proclaimed John dead, a victim of murder, who then was he protecting himself from?
Clearly, in the end, his decision to testify against Hauptmann was coerced by the Prosecution. Maybe that coercion was necessary due to his fear, and now this new fear was an over-riding factor to now tell the truth.
While its a maze of possibilities, in the end, the guy just wasn't honest from beginning to end, so one has to start to figure out his motives sooner or later no matter how many times we defer the effort or ignore the fact he is morphed into a Character to fit whatever theory we want to believe about the Case.
His actions speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 8, 2010 7:37:36 GMT -5
i know this, his description of what hauptmann looked like is very close to perrones and the food stand guy levantano. i dont think his identifying hauptmann at the trial was coerced or staged. you should look at the man himself hauptmann, and why reilly put him on the stand to bury himself further and sprinkle in those great defense witnessess who were caught lying. im mad as hell about my jets getting killed 45 to 3 in new england
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2010 17:38:15 GMT -5
Which one of the Defense Witnesses were caught "lying" and what happened to them as a result of their "lies?"
We can prove who lied on the State side of things. I have the documentation. I also have the proof of coercion. They even tampered with Witnesses, like Kloppenberg & Condon, before the Trial. Nothing was "off the table" as far as they were concerned - then they have the brass balls to attack the Defense and what they were able to muster up under the circumstances? They bribed his Lawyer to switch sides. Trenchard took away all hope the Jury might consider ANY of the Defense points/arguments.
I often wonder why they even had a trial.
Levetano's description was different and even he didn't ID Hauptmann. It was Hauptmann who ID'd him. It's a great Control pertaining to the likes of Rossiter, Whited, and Hochmuth's identification (if we didn't already have proof they lied).
Don't worry about the Jets. When you get beat that's how its supposed to happen. They are better then that and everyone knows it....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 8, 2010 19:36:49 GMT -5
you have proof? id love to see it. hauptmanns defense witnessess were pathetic wilentz tore themapart. hauptmann was a bad witness to himself you cant deny that. he was the biggest liar out of all of them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2010 7:00:14 GMT -5
"I believe he was murdered." Thus Dr. John F. Condon tonight expressed himself on the death in Leipzig, Germany, of Isadore Fisch.....
.....Three persons were involved in the kidnapping......
....From the first Dr. Condon has described "John" as a man with a wracking cough. He pointed out that Fisch has been characterized by those who know him as a man with a cough, a sickly German with a throat ailment.....
....This cough has caused Dr. Condon to speculate whether Fisch might be "John.".... He said Hauptmann fits shadowy character he talked with in some respects, but that in others he does not. [AP: 9-22-34] You've never seen Kloppenberg's letter? Kennedy was absolutely right. Haven't you read Kiss's affidavit? Foster's sworn statement? Sisk's Report to Hoover about Hauptmann being beaten? As a Police Officer, or a Prosecutor, you cannot lie about things, you cannot hide things, and you cannot be subversive. Your case should speak for itself. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as the person you are trying to convict.
|
|