Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 19:13:39 GMT -5
I understand, Michael. They didn't look into Fisch to see if he might have a connection to the Lindbergh case. They just wanted to make sure they could defuse anything that might be uncovered by the defense. If they weren't looking to connect Fisch then I guess it is safe to assume that Condon was never asked to look at a photo of Fisch?
Ever since I first read about what Breckinridge said about the man who came to his office back in March of 1932, I have believed that Fisch was involved with the crime in some fashion and that he might have been the one to recruit Hauptmann. Do you know (or if you can say) whether Fisch knew Hauptmann was in this country illegally? Do you think that Hauptmann would have told Fisch something like that?
Thanks for posting that letter. It is sad that a father would have to file a legal suit to get his family to help him. And what does that say about the character of Pickus and Isidor!! I see that Henry Uhlig was right there to help his very best friend Isidor with pleading his case to the German consulate. If Fisch did have any connection to the crime/extortion, I don't see how Uhlig didn't know about it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 12, 2015 9:26:08 GMT -5
To Amy, Michael, and All:
In looking back at this squabble that may have occurred within the Fisch family and the suit mentioned by the NYPD representative, you have to take into account that nothing might have been quite as it seemed, because the Fisch family was Jewish and thus their dealings in the Nazi German court system at this time could well have been tainted by the second-class citizenship imposed on them by fiat by the regime. And Fisch family members in Germany had to be guarded in what they said to the NYPD because the Gestapo was ever present.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2015 20:23:43 GMT -5
I understand, Michael. They didn't look into Fisch to see if he might have a connection to the Lindbergh case. They just wanted to make sure they could defuse anything that might be uncovered by the defense. Yes and no. I think at first they were looking to possibly find "more" then as things developed it was more of not wanting something to upset their theory by blindsiding them, and they wanted to be ready and at least have something prepared to explain whatever came up away. If they weren't looking to connect Fisch then I guess it is safe to assume that Condon was never asked to look at a photo of Fisch? Condon told Special Agent Turrou in early October that he had studied a picture of Fisch that was in the newspaper. (So at least up till this point he hadn't been and had done so on his own.) Then he proceeded to tell Turrou he believed Fisch was the guy who passed Reich's car at Woodlawn. This is information that was also "lost" to history. Like Breck's story it had to be for the State's theory to "work." Ever since I first read about what Breckinridge said about the man who came to his office back in March of 1932, I have believed that Fisch was involved with the crime in some fashion and that he might have been the one to recruit Hauptmann. Do you know (or if you can say) whether Fisch knew Hauptmann was in this country illegally? Do you think that Hauptmann would have told Fisch something like that? I don't think this question was ever posed to Hauptmann, or if it had I may have missed it. I think Joe brought up this possibility once but I can't exactly remember where it led. If Fisch did have any connection to the crime/extortion, I don't see how Uhlig didn't know about it. Do you think this is why he jumped to Hauptmann's defense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 9:55:32 GMT -5
Condon told Special Agent Turrou in early October that he had studied a picture of Fisch that was in the newspaper. (So at least up till this point he hadn't been and had done so on his own.) Then he proceeded to tell Turrou he believed Fisch was the guy who passed Reich's car at Woodlawn. This is information that was also "lost" to history. Like Breck's story it had to be for the State's theory to "work." Interesting! This would put Fisch at Woodlawn. Could it also put Fisch on the bench in Van Cortlandt Park, with his hacking cough and large ears, talking things over with Condon? I see the possiblities there. Plus, I have seen articles where Condon wanted the authorities to have Fisch's body exhumed to see if he had been murdered. Condon would like them to look beyond Hauptmann to a bigger picture but he gets no response. After all, you can't prosecute a dead man!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 11:06:48 GMT -5
Ever since I first read about what Breckinridge said about the man who came to his office back in March of 1932, I have believed that Fisch was involved with the crime in some fashion and that he might have been the one to recruit Hauptmann. Do you know (or if you can say) whether Fisch knew Hauptmann was in this country illegally? Do you think that Hauptmann would have told Fisch something like that? I don't think this question was ever posed to Hauptmann, or if it had I may have missed it. I think Joe brought up this possibility once but I can't exactly remember where it led. I shall look around and see if I can find Joe's posts on this. Although I don't think it would have mattered to Fisch, it might have been a factor when people were being selected to help with this crime. The last thing Hauptmann would have wanted was to be deported back to Germany and end up back in prison. Besides any financial compensation, this might have played into his participation. Something else I have been thinking about is when Fisch and Hauptmann actually met. I know the whole Gerta Henkel introduced them at her apartment story. Then she was supposedly told at some point by Fisch that he and Hauptmann had met previously. Thinking about when "previously" might have taken place, I have been looking at some possibilites. Briefly: First is Hans Mueller. According to sources I have read, Hans was telling Richard not to do business with Fisch. He said that Fisch could not be trusted. Hans was trying to warn Richard about Fisch. This makes me think that Hans had prior knowledge about Fisch and very possibly could have met him before Hauptmann did and might even have introduced the two casually in the past. Hans was in America illegally just like Hauptmann. Could Fisch have known about Hauptmann's status through Hans? Second is Carl Henkel. Carl Henkel came to America in 1926 from Kamenz, Germany, the same city as Hauptmann. Henkel's mother, Augusta Hile arranged for her son to room with Isidor Fisch and Henry Uhlig when he came over. Although the Henkels claimed that they didn't meet Hauptmann until July of 1932, that might not necessarily be true. They could have met Hauptmann through Fisch before July and not the other way around as Gerta claimed in her testimony. I have considered the possiblity that Carl knew about Hauptmann's criminal past in Kamenz since he was living there when Hauptmann was involved with robberies in his hometown. Carl could have shared this with Fisch, which would have made Hauptmann approachable as a possible participant in the Lindbergh crime. I think that if Hauptmann and Fisch are to be linked together as members of the "gang" responsible for the Lindbergh baby kidnapping/extortion, it would have been necessary for these two men to have know each other prior to March 1, 1932. There was planning and preparation involved. This crime didn't come together two weeks before it occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 12:46:06 GMT -5
If Fisch did have any connection to the crime/extortion, I don't see how Uhlig didn't know about it. Do you think this is why he jumped to Hauptmann's defense? I have been thinking about your question. I see Uhlig walking a careful line between both men. He can't save Hauptmann by saying Fisch was involved without putting himself in jeopardy of being "in the know" or possibly involved. Fisch and Uhlig were living together before, during and after the kidnapping and the ransom payment. Fisch's involvement may well have been the reason they separated in mid April, 1932. Uhlig down the street to a different apartment and Fisch to Selma Kohls's apartment building downtown where Carl and Gerta were living. I see Uhlig supporting Hauptmann's claim of a business partnership between the two men (Fisch and Hauptmann)as a mediocre attempt to help Hauptmann. Uhlig doesn't put Fisch into that picture as being in possession of lots of money to invest with Hauptmann. Instead, he paints Hauptmann as being the victim of a scam by Fisch. Fisch is taking money from Hauptmann under the pretense of investing it into furs. Am I missing something here? Where does Uhlig say that Fisch was giving Hauptmann money to invest in the stock market end of the partnership that is separate from the fur funds Hauptmann is giving him? When reading the testimony of Uhlig at Hauptmann's trial, Wilentz didn't seem to have much concern about Uhlig. Wilentz only asked Uhlig one question on cross-examination and that was whether Fisch was an American citizen to which Uhlig answered yes. Am I not seeing something I should be seeing??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 14, 2015 17:17:04 GMT -5
First is Hans Mueller. According to sources I have read, Hans was telling Richard not to do business with Fisch. He said that Fisch could not be trusted. Hans was trying to warn Richard about Fisch. This makes me think that Hans had prior knowledge about Fisch and very possibly could have met him before Hauptmann did and might even have introduced the two casually in the past. Hans was in America illegally just like Hauptmann. Could Fisch have known about Hauptmann's status through Hans? Amy - which sources are you referring to? Am I missing something here? Where does Uhlig say that Fisch was giving Hauptmann money to invest in the stock market end of the partnership that is separate from the fur funds Hauptmann is giving him? When reading the testimony of Uhlig at Hauptmann's trial, Wilentz didn't seem to have much concern about Uhlig. Wilentz only asked Uhlig one question on cross-examination and that was whether Fisch was an American citizen to which Uhlig answered yes. Am I not seeing something I should be seeing?? One of the Authors mentioned exactly how bad Reilly screwed up Uhlig's testimony and they were correct. Before I go any further I wanted to mention that Lloyd did a masterful job with his chapter on Fisch ( starting on page 243). He sorts out all of the drips and drabs of the complicated issues which come up during the investigatons then accurately sums up what's represented in those Reports. It's a must read for anyone interested in this Crime. Anyway, to answer your question Amy, Uhlig's position was never brought out during the trial. Here is a newspaper clipping I found in the Hoffman Collection which is probably the quickest way to show what he believed:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 10:36:40 GMT -5
Amy - which sources are you referring to? The sources I read concerning Mueller are Scaduto in Scapegoat pages 359 and 360; Kennedy in Crime of the Century page 148; Jones in Murder of Justice pages 586 and 587. The source document for what Hans Mueller said about Fisch and Hauptmann's business relationship is from an FBI transcript of Mueller's interview in the Bronx District Attorney Foley's office dated October 11, 1934. Hans is questioning the trustworthiness of Fisch and the claimed fur investments he was supposedly making. He warns Hauptmann that he should get this partnership legitimized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 11:13:07 GMT -5
One of the Authors mentioned exactly how bad Reilly screwed up Uhlig's testimony and they were correct. Before I go any further I wanted to mention that Lloyd did a masterful job with his chapter on Fisch ( starting on page 243). He sorts out all of the drips and drabs of the complicated issues which come up during the investigatons then accurately sums up what's represented in those Reports. It's a must read for anyone interested in this Crime. Anyway, to answer your question Amy, Uhlig's position was never brought out during the trial. Here is a newspaper clipping I found in the Hoffman Collection which is probably the quickest way to show what he believed: I am going to review Lloyd's chapter again more closely in hopes of better understanding both Fisch and the business relationship between Hauptmann and Fisch. What bothers me is that there seems to be no way to show that Fisch ever gave any money to Hauptmann for this partnership. It appears that Hauptmann is funding both sides, giving Fisch money for fur purchases and Hauptmann buys stocks himself for their investments based on the future sale of all the furs that were supposed to have been bought by Fisch to build up the fur side of this business partnership. Thanks for posting the newspaper article. I see it is dated February 8, 1935. Uhlig testified on February 7, 1935. This article contains what I had hoped Uhlig's testimony would have brought out. Reilly failed to bring out anything that would have helped his client. My questions to you, Michael, are: Did Reilly and/or any of the defense team sit down with Uhlig and review what he would testify to before he was called as a witness? Did they ever discuss what Uhlig believed to be the truth about Hauptmann and Fisch? In that article Uhlig says he thinks Fisch bought $14,600 in hot money, which ended up being the money left with Hauptmann. I find myself wondering why Fisch would take legitimate money which was of full value and buy money that would not be worth its full face value. He would then have to be able to sell it for more than he paid for it in order to make a "profit". I guess I have trouble seeing Fisch risking good money on bad money. He always wanted the biggest bang for every buck that went through his hands if you ask me! I found Uhlig's comment about Fisch going to courts and watching how the law operates very interesting. Reminded me about CJ asking Condon about possible immunity and the need to set aside money for lawyers. I think Fisch always had a purpose for the things he did and he had one for observing court actions. Something to ponder about!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 13:24:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2015 18:42:08 GMT -5
The sources I read concerning Mueller are Scaduto in Scapegoat pages 359 and 360; Kennedy in Crime of the Century page 148; Jones in Murder of Justice pages 586 and 587. The source document for what Hans Mueller said about Fisch and Hauptmann's business relationship is from an FBI transcript of Mueller's interview in the Bronx District Attorney Foley's office dated October 11, 1934. Hans is questioning the trustworthiness of Fisch and the claimed fur investments he was supposedly making. He warns Hauptmann that he should get this partnership legitimized. It looks like they are all using the same source or Kennedy and Jones are using Scaduto as theirs. I absolutely know this isn't coming from either of Breslin's interviews with Mueller and I have a faint recollection of this coming from an FBI Report. My only hesitation being that I could be remembering this from Scaduto's book itself and not a report although that is unlikely. I am going to have to find this Report, and it could be in one of any numerous files I've put together because Mueller is mentioned in many that cover multiple topics. Taken at face value as it's written in the book I don't have any problem with it. He's saying that was his first encounter with Fisch....but I'd rather find this Report itself before going any further. My questions to you, Michael, are: Did Reilly and/or any of the defense team sit down with Uhlig and review what he would testify to before he was called as a witness? Did they ever discuss what Uhlig believed to be the truth about Hauptmann and Fisch? Fisher said there were many Defense Witnesses that neither he nor Rosencranz & Pope had any idea what they were going to testify too, however, I believe there was a general idea here that his testimony would be favorable. I will have to go through Fisher's material to see if he makes any specific comments about Uhlig. Many of the Witnesses did sit down with Reilly but usually it was a swift interview. If he heard something he liked they were "in."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 19:53:10 GMT -5
I am going to have to find this Report, and it could be in one of any numerous files I've put together because Mueller is mentioned in many that cover multiple topics. Taken at face value as it's written in the book I don't have any problem with it. He's saying that was his first encounter with Fisch....but I'd rather find this Report itself before going any further. Thank you! I appreciate you checking the report first. In Jones' book on page 584 he does mention about Mueller seeing Fisch in Hauptmann house. He says Hans Mueller remembered that the only time he ever saw Fisch in Hauptmann's house was after Fisch had definitely decided to return to Germany before Christmas. When I read this it didn't sound like this was the first time Mueller met Fisch. Mueller is saying it was the first time he had seen Fisch in Hauptmann's house. I would really like to be clear on this point so I look forward to what the full report says.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2015 13:37:54 GMT -5
I appreciate you checking the report first. In Jones' book on page 584 he does mention about Mueller seeing Fisch in Hauptmann house. He says Hans Mueller remembered that the only time he ever saw Fisch in Hauptmann's house was after Fisch had definitely decided to return to Germany before Christmas. When I read this it didn't sound like this was the first time Mueller met Fisch. Mueller is saying it was the first time he had seen Fisch in Hauptmann's house. I would really like to be clear on this point so I look forward to what the full report says. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it in the "expected" folders. One thing for certain though is that by searching for it I am convinced that I have it so I am sure it could turn up in other folders which I am sure to consult in the future.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 18, 2015 13:06:53 GMT -5
I've always thought the "Fisch Story" was mostly an alibi. After all, Hauptmann must have created some type of answer in case he was ever asked about the remaining money he had. It's funny there was no money easily obtainable in his house and it seems that Anna knew about the cash and what it was, and very strictly wouldn't allow it in the house. Perhaps he could get to the garage stash quickly and it just sounds like it would be hard to get at from the descriptions of places the bills were.
Was Fisch's name even on any of BRH's ledger entries? It seems like the whole Fisch entry into TLC could have been pretty much created although there were the Klaus & Milar letterheads and pelts he left w/Richard upon leaving for Germany.
I heard a rumor that Isidor bought the money he left with Richard on the black market from Adolph Hitler for pennies on the dollar. He paid for it with Knickerbocker Pie Co. stocks.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 18, 2015 15:11:50 GMT -5
I've always thought the "Fisch Story" was mostly an alibi. After all, Hauptmann must have created some type of answer in case he was ever asked about the remaining money he had. It's funny there was no money easily obtainable in his house and it seems that Anna knew about the cash and what it was, and very strictly wouldn't allow it in the house. Perhaps he could get to the garage stash quickly and it just sounds like it would be hard to get at from the descriptions of places the bills were. My issue with this is that it is such a stupid explanation if this was his "alibi." There's a million more believable stories that he could have told. To me it reads like there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. A very credible witness saw him getting a similar sized box at a party from Fisch, which seems like the basis for the Fisch story.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 18, 2015 16:15:09 GMT -5
Certainly Fisch could have brought a shoebox sized box over to Hauptmann's apartment on the night of the party, but how do we know what was in it? It could have been filled with valuable chipmunk pelts for all we know because Richard lied about everything else and it's only by his word that there was money in the box. Richard even lied we now know about how the "wet money" found its way to the garage.
It's very naive thinking that something the size of a box would be in Anna's clean home and she wouldn't know about it.
Name a few of the million more believable alibis he could have chosen. Seems a dead guy or he found some money bags somewhere is about it realistically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 19:53:24 GMT -5
I tend to think that Fisch did bring a package over to Hauptmann's the night of the bon voyage party. We just don't know for sure that it had ransom money in it. If Fisch was laundering gold certs for Hauptmann, then it is possible he was returning what he wasn't able to sell back to Hauptmann. So would this mean that Fisch was in on the extortion with Hauptmann or was he brought in after the fact as a "business" partner. Fisch was to launder gold certs and use those funds to buy furs for resale at a later time and Hauptmann would invest money into stocks for both of them. I do believe they had a business relationship but Fisch was deceiving Hauptmann about the fur side of the partnership.
I no longer believe that the money became wet because of being on the shelf in the kitchen closet and the package getting wet from the water leaking down the pipe in the closet. The defense called the plumber Gustave Miller, who checked out the leak. On cross examination by Wilentz, that part of the Fisch story about the money getting soaked on the closet shelf, didn't hold up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2015 16:04:33 GMT -5
Was Fisch's name even on any of BRH's ledger entries? Here's an example (page 76 from the National Ledger):
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 19, 2015 19:27:44 GMT -5
My issue with this is that it is such a stupid explanation if this was his "alibi." There's a million more believable stories that he could have told. To me it reads like there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. A very credible witness saw him getting a similar sized box at a party from Fisch, which seems like the basis for the Fisch story. I agree that by using some truth he's spinning that into possession by ignorance. Name a few of the million more believable alibis he could have chosen. Seems a dead guy or he found some money bags somewhere is about it realistically. The easiest and most wide-spread was the fact people were peddling "hot money." Gold Certificates themselves became "hot" for no reason other then the Executive Order. He could have simply said he bought it. Many people in the US who were traveling to Europe believed they would get more for it on the exchange over there. That's why Gartner was buying them from Steinweg. I tend to think that Fisch did bring a package over to Hauptmann's the night of the bon voyage party. We just don't know for sure that it had ransom money in it. If Fisch was laundering gold certs for Hauptmann, then it is possible he was returning what he wasn't able to sell back to Hauptmann. So would this mean that Fisch was in on the extortion with Hauptmann or was he brought in after the fact as a "business" partner. I agree Fisch dropped off packages, and I believe there was a box of ransom money included with these items. The important question is whether or not Hauptmann knew. If he did then nothing else matters as it relates to his guilt concerning this money. A lie based on an actual fact is just as much a lie even if it wasn't. What's important about the "Fisch Story" is Fisch having some of the money in his possession to actually turn over to Hauptmann in the first place.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 20, 2015 11:01:07 GMT -5
I guess it just comes down to who's scammin' who because none of this Fisch stuff actually exists. It's kinda hard to believe that BRH with his street knowledge would just turn into Fisch's cash cow. But that's what HE makes it look like because nobody else is involved in these transactions and agreements.
Could Richard be trying to hide his stock market losses from Anna in case she ever found out by saying "oh, Fisch cheated me out of a bunch of money?" Of course when Anna would want to see some of these furs and he says he has no idea where they are she'd have to think how dumb is this guy? Probably what the police thought of the Fisch story too.
So, in just, there's certainly more to the Fisch story, but the answers probably died on the electric chair.
You have to remember in TLC that just about everything about Hauptmann except what he was caught lying about comes straight from Hauptmann. A good example is the money in the shoebox. For years and from everything I've read about the issue, everyone assumed because a German (trying to establish an alibi for Hauptmann) saw Fisch with the box, and that it was a box of hot money, but we really have no way of knowing what was actually in the box or even if there was a box.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2015 18:34:41 GMT -5
So, in just, there's certainly more to the Fisch story, but the answers probably died on the electric chair. That's why we have to come to a personal conclusion about it. For example, if one believes something Hauptmann said was absolutely false, then other things can be true as a result. If one believes something is true then, as a result of that "fact," there's other things that would have to be false - and vice versa. Consider all of the " if-then" scenarios and over time things will start to fall into place if and when it's "ready" to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 22:08:26 GMT -5
I agree Fisch dropped off packages, and I believe there was a box of ransom money included with these items. The important question is whether or not Hauptmann knew. If he did then nothing else matters as it relates to his guilt concerning this money. A lie based on an actual fact is just as much a lie even if it wasn't. What's important about the "Fisch Story" is Fisch having some of the money in his possession to actually turn over to Hauptmann in the first place. So, Michael, can you clarify your first sentence for me, Fisch dropped off packages and there was a box of ransom money included with these items. I know that Fisch had dropped off some things several weeks before the going away party. Are you suggesting that the ransom money was in one those boxes or the valise Hauptmann was storing for Fisch or am I misunderstanding that sentence? The fact that the majority of the money found hidden in the gargage had been wrapped in newspapers dated from June and Septmember 1934, I think, gives an element of truth to Hauptmann's claim that Fisch left that money with him. What isn't clear is whether Fisch had that ransom money independent of Hauptmann. What I mean by that is Fisch did not get the ransom money from Hauptmann and he was then returning to Hauptmann what had not been laundered. So much of the business relationship centers around 1933. The page from Hauptmann's notebook that you posted has 1933 entries. Is there any evidence that they were partners in 1932? I know that Fred Hahn claimed to have seen money in Hauptmann's radio that Richard said belonged to Fisch. This was the summer of 1932. I have some doubts about Hauptmann knowing the shoebox money was ransom money. The way he was spending it, arguing with merchants, telling Lyle at the gas station he had a 100 more gold certs at home suggests ignorance about these bills. Why would he behave like that if he knew the money was Lindbergh ransom money? This spending behavior is quite different from how the money was being spent previously. I think the earlier spending reflects someone who obviously knew it was ransom money and called no attention to himself when spending it. I do see Hauptmann being involved with this crime, but not as a lone wolf. I see room for Fisch in this crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 21, 2015 7:59:56 GMT -5
Several questions. If Fisch/Hauptmann or simply Fisch bought the money at a discount, say 50%, where would either of them get $ 7,000 to pay for it, and why, especially when this wasn't just hot money, it was really hot money from the most serious of crimes where all of the serial numbers had been circulated to banks and much more, buy it even at a discount? Also whoever had the hot money had so far passed about $ 35,000 of it without incident so why sell it?
In the "Hauptmann didn't know it was Lindbergh money" column is the fact that Richard paid his rent with (two?) gold bills that were found to be ransom bills. His landlady even claimed that he had paid before in gold bills as early as December of '33. I'm sure the bills she presented to police on 9/19 or 20 '34 were noted by police but it seems to me I read that she had saved the earlier bill too. Was this in the hands of authorities? It might have been timed somewhat because there seemed to be a pattern of the passing of the bills and her earlier one might have fit in somewhere. The December bill would have been long before Richard claimed he had discovered the Fisch money in August '34.
Mrs. Rauch, the landlady, was confirmed in her statements of the gold bills by her daughter Mrs. Urant. However, Mrs. Urant also claimed that Richard had changed at least 45 five dollar bills at a nearby gas station. I'm not sure how anybody would know this unless Hauptmann wore a sign on his back that he was heading down to the gas station to spend some five dollar bills? Sounds more like the Rauch/Urant families didn't like Richard. But it brings up an interesting point because Mrs. Urant may have been aware that there were also many five dollar bills in the ransom package, and makes me think or wonder that everyone at that time was very aware of The Lindbergh Crime - except of course Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 21, 2015 11:18:24 GMT -5
Well, he was aware and interested enough in the LKC to have written Condon's address inside his closet.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2015 16:30:44 GMT -5
So, Michael, can you clarify your first sentence for me, Fisch dropped off packages and there was a box of ransom money included with these items. I know that Fisch had dropped off some things several weeks before the going away party. Are you suggesting that the ransom money was in one those boxes or the valise Hauptmann was storing for Fisch or am I misunderstanding that sentence? Yes it's a misunderstanding. I was trying to emphasize that he dropped off several things to Hauptmann - and not just a box of money. Whatever Kloppenberg saw him give Hauptmann seems most likely to have contained the loot.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2015 8:35:22 GMT -5
According to Waller (U.S. Hardcover p 256) Mrs. Rauch had the gold ransom note which Richard give her for Jan. '34 rent in an old eyeglass case where she kept it for safekeeping. She gave it to the police on 9/19/34 along with the gold note he had just given her for partial current rent. This meant that Hauptmann had the bills long before he claimed to have found them in August 1934.
Hopefully these bills were kept separately and their serial numbers are noted in police files. I have serial numbers for bills passed until January '34, but of course the Rauch notes were found in Sep. '34 at the same time as the bill from Hauptmann's wallet and the garage stash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 13:53:03 GMT -5
According to Waller (U.S. Hardcover p 256) Mrs. Rauch had the gold ransom note which Richard give her for Jan. '34 rent in an old eyeglass case where she kept it for safekeeping. She gave it to the police on 9/19/34 along with the gold note he had just given her for partial current rent. This meant that Hauptmann had the bills long before he claimed to have found them in August 1934. Hopefully these bills were kept separately and their serial numbers are noted in police files. I have serial numbers for bills passed until January '34, but of course the Rauch notes were found in Sep. '34 at the same time as the bill from Hauptmann's wallet and the garage stash. When you first brought this up a couple of posts back, I have been checking what I could find about Pauline Rauch having been paid with ransom money. I have seen this claimed in newspaper accounts by Mrs. Rauch's daughter. If Hauptmann had paid with ransom note gold certificates (which Mrs. Rauch had in her possession) and they had been confirmed as such by LE, then why wasn't this very damaging proof ever used in the Flemington trial against Hauptmann? As you say, it would have killed the Fisch Story right on the witness stand. Pauline Rauch was never put on the stand in Flemington to testify about them. Her son Max Rauch was put on the stand but only to testify that the attic floor was not missing any wood when he rented the apartment to Hauptmann in Oct. of 1931. No mention of money, ransom or otherwise. I do know that Pauline Rauch was called to testify at the Grand Jury hearing. Perhaps she gave testimony about those gold certificates then. If so, why did they not use this during the Flemington Trial. Michael, can you comment on this please.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2015 15:15:21 GMT -5
Good question.
Fisher writes basically the same thing, only I think he says she got the earlier note in Dec. '33.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2015 19:42:05 GMT -5
Michael, can you comment on this please. I am going to try my best not to offend anyone but this type of "stuff" drives me crazy. Firstly, I cannot rate Waller's research because I do not know what his sources are. However, in this matter I know what they are not. Next, Fisher's books are known for their tough talking no-nonsense approach of slamming other Authors for being "Revisionists" yet, his books are among the worst examples of this! Fisher's source is a New York Times article which quotes neither Pauline nor Max themselves but instead a relative. Further still, Richard's new book ( p151) regurgitates Waller's claims and (from what I can tell) he's presenting them as factual. The best presentation of the above comes from Lloyd's book ( p192) where he represents this as a "story" that Urvant insisted was true - then cites newspaper reports. Now, in the absence of any other sources then I would say we should consider the possibility. However, there ARE other sources which are far superior to either Waller or a Newspaper Report quoting someone who was not actually involved. It begins on September 21 when Max Rauch was interviewed by Inspector Bruckman at the Bronx County District Attorney's Office: [Bruckman]: How did he pay his rent?
[Rauch]: Cash. The last I got three tens and one twenty.
[Bruckman]: Did you ever get any gold bills from him?
[Rauch]: I think the twenty was gold, others green. I paid forty dollars on an oil burner. Just that day salesman come in and rent was due and I gave him forty dollars and sent ten dollars. So the New York Times article is already wrong concerning the recent rent payment being turned over to Police. Strike One. Next, as of September 28, 1934, there is absolutely no record of any ransom as originating from the Rauch's: This now proves no Ransom Money had been turned over to Police at ANY time by the Rauch's previous to this date. Strike Two. Further action on the part of Law Enforcement was to request any and all evidence from the Rauch's concerning Rent payments from the Hauptmann's. While no actual money is mentioned in the Report as being turned over, the receipts of payment were. In Agent Genau's mid-October Report referencing these receipts he writes: "The source of this money to Hauptmann in unknown." Strike Three.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 20:47:08 GMT -5
Thank you Michael for responding on this point. It certainly sets the record straight. I do apologize for pulling you into this.
|
|