|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2015 21:14:38 GMT -5
Thank you Michael for responding on this point. It certainly sets the record straight. I do apologize for pulling you into this. Don't appologize - I'm glad you asked. This exemplifies why it's so important not to simply take an Author's word for it. And it also shows the point I've made in the past how certain mistakes are often repeated. I don't know whether the sources I've cited were missed or ignored. That's not to say I'll never cite Waller or the New York Times myself however, I think it all depends upon what I've alluded to in my last post.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2015 21:25:02 GMT -5
Regarding Richard Hauptmann's claim that he had nothing to do with any Lindbergh ransom money prior to late August 1034, on March 1, 1933 a ten dollar ransom bill was passed at the United Cigar Store on Third Avenue in NYC. Philip Alsofrom, store manager, described the passer of the note as a white male about six feet tall, around 40 years old, light complected with a long thin face. The man was wearing a soft hat and dark clothing.
This is a good description of Hauptmann, made long before anyone had ever heard of him.
When Hauptmann was arrested a year and a half later Alsofrom recognized him as the ransom note passer from his picture in the paper and when presented additional photographs of Richard by the Federal Investigators he again stated that was the man who had passed the bill in March of '33.
Special Agent Leon G. Turrou, FBI Report Oct 3, 1934.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2015 7:52:14 GMT -5
This is a good description of Hauptmann, made long before anyone had ever heard of him. While I cannot agree this is a good description of Hauptmann, I think what makes it possible it actually was him is based on what Alsofrom says. After all, he's the guy who told Police if he ever saw this guy again he'd recognize him. The Report you cite which was written on 10-3-34 was based on Turrou's interview of Alsofrom on 10-2-34. Shortly after this investigation, Alsofrom was swooped up by the Bronx County District Attorney's Office and brought in for an official statement 10-2-34 at 7:45PM: [Breslin]: You saw pictures of this man who is in custody up here?
[Alsofrom]: Yes I saw pictures in the paper and I saw a picture and imagined I saw it as I told Mr. Turau(sic) it was sort of I knew the man but whether I have seen him or not I am not positive. That man looks familiar to me.
[Breslin]: Do you think you would be able to recognize him if you saw him?
[Alsofrom]: I would try to. If I can't I will tell you honestly. Recalled by Breslin on 10-3-34 at 12:20PM: [Breslin]: Did you see anyone in the court room this morning who resembled the person who passed that bill?
[Alsofrom]: This person I was looking at is Hauptmann and he resembles the fellow I had in mind, and as I said I didn't look at the fellow too long, all I saw was a glimpse.
[Breslin]: You told us last night you had a conversation with him?
[Alsofrom]: I said, "Just a second" when I got to the register, I said, "You don't get many of these bills anymore" and gave him the change, meaning the gold certificate.
[Breslin]: Can you positively identify the man?
[Alsofrom]: I cannot positively identify the man but he certainly looks like the man who came in the store the day I got the gold certificate. After I seen the man just now his sunken eyes in the head and long jaw.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2015 11:34:21 GMT -5
The major point here is that there has always been a notion (even on here sometimes) that Fisch laundered the money which he and Richard procured through the kidnapping crime. That sounds like an easy solution but it wouldn't have been. Fisch was a very recognizable character while BRH looked more like the average guy on the street. I have the few descriptions which were made of those who passed bills (usually an unknown male) which would have worked for Hauptmann, but there are no descriptions among them of a skinny little guy who looked like Eddy Cantor; that guy would have been remembered.
The alternative here would have been that Fisch sold the hot bills at a discount. Again that sounds easy but if you think about when the potential buyer saw what he was actually buying (and it wouldn't take much of a mental giant to figure out that they were Lindbergh bills) would he/she even want them?
Remember also that every time you did show someone the bills for sale you'd be implication yourself in the biggest crime since the Civil War which would have made a heck of a story for some wary buyer to come up with for newspapers and books. Fisch (or Fisch/Hauptmann) has the Lindbergh ransom money!
Would it be worth the chance to even ask anyone short of Jack the Ripper if he wanted to buy some funny money?
The description above shows that someone roughly resembling Hauptmann was passing Lindbergh bills - and in this particular instance he certainly was not Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2015 13:46:49 GMT -5
The description above shows that someone roughly resembling Hauptmann was passing Lindbergh bills - and in this particular instance he certainly was not Fisch. While I disagree the description (even roughly) matches Hauptmann, your point that it absolutely doesn't match Fisch is something I do agree with. Someone 6 foot tall isn't close to someone 5'8" and certainly not the "little shrimp" Fisch's height so often was described. Also, the age of 40 years old...even during the trial when Hauptmann was 35 he didn't look anywhere near 40. I believe several ransom note passings were made by those who were in possession of money that had already been laundered. Next, there's some instances of people recalling "hot money" being sold and Lindbergh Ransom didn't enter the conversation. So if it weren't for reading these accounts in the files myself I would probably be agreeing with your point here too. I've come to the conclusion that greed was an over-riding factor when it came to common sense on this point. Anyway, just my perspective and I am hoping your posts encourage more comments for everyone to consider.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2015 15:30:31 GMT -5
Part of my point was that I don't see how anyone could launder in bulk that money, although if we go by the accepted story Fisch laundered his by giving it to Hauptmann.
Regarding the Alsofrom ID he only saw the passer briefly and I agree that his Hauptmann statement weakened as it went along. It has to be remembered though, that a firmly positive identification of someone spending Lindbergh money could put that person in the electric chair or at the wrong end of a lynch mob - it certainly was a serious thing.
Regarding Hauptmann's claim of knowing nothing about Lindbergh money though it was found on his person and in his garage, the following quote is of interest. The sources are iffy but they must have been made to LKC trial prosecutors and possibly police officers. Although they are found in Fisher's Ghost book I'm sure he didn't make them up and I certainly didn't. Fisher, remember, is/was a university professor and former FBI Special Agent.
"According to Stanley P. Keith, a metallurgical engineer hired by the prosecution as a scientific consultant, the water in that crock (the one found under Hauptmann's garage which he claimed no knowledge of even though he had built the garage directly over) contained traces of camphor produced by mothballs. The mothballs had been in the crock to keep out moths and other vermin. Keith had examined some of the ransom bills found in Hauptmann's garage and noticed they had a distinctive odor. When he examined these bills under a microscope, he saw crystals of camphor. From this, Keith concluded that the person who had buried this money had put it away for a long time, and that ground water had soaked this money, not water from a leaking closet."
Another scientific witness supported Keith's conclusion that the money had for a long time rested in that jug or a similar place but for some reason he didn't testify at trial, and Keith testified only to the fact that the nails used to make the kidnap ladder matched exactly the nails BRH kept in a keg in his garage. Interestingly it was found that almost all of the nails in the kidnap ladder were driven by an experienced carpenter - that is, their heads were perfectly correct with the board they were driven into
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2015 19:03:06 GMT -5
Regarding Hauptmann's claim of knowing nothing about Lindbergh money though it was found on his person and in his garage, the following quote is of interest. The sources are iffy but they must have been made to LKC trial prosecutors and possibly police officers. Although they are found in Fisher's Ghost book I'm sure he didn't make them up and I certainly didn't. Fisher, remember, is/was a university professor and former FBI Special Agent. "Iffy" is putting it mildly. Did you happen to catch the source for this? Neither did I because there is none. Did you see what he wrote on page 150? " The Hahns and Alsofrom would have made excellent rebuttal witnesses had Wilentz needed them." Is that so? Sure, if I stopped researching or ignored other reports then I suppose it could be. He clearly didn't do his homework, and what's incredibly funny is that he is regarded as highly as he is concerning this case. Yes, he has great creds, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the FBI. In fact, their Agents trained me on building entries and handgun disarm techniques back in '93. Awesome training by top-notch professionals. However, if any one of these men wrote a book on this Kidnapping that is as bad as Fisher's books I would still be saying theirs suck just as bad as his do.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2015 19:22:17 GMT -5
I think Waller used a newspaper source for the Rausch bills statement (looks like NYT) and since then everyone has used Waller. It's in quite a few books.
Fisher uses no source for the above but still makes it sound correct. Do you know otherwise?
As I said, I don't make stuff up but can't speak for Fisher in that regard.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2015 19:28:42 GMT -5
I think I can find what newspaper (date & publication) if you think you can get the paper - re: Rausch info.. It's a Lindbergh story of course.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2015 9:09:56 GMT -5
I think Waller used a newspaper source for the Rausch bills statement (looks like NYT) and since then everyone has used Waller. It's in quite a few books. That's my point. If something isn't researched properly, and something written "somewhere" is taken as gospel then it turns into a mudslide of false information. I've got several newspaper reports that make this claim. One specifically says that Pauline gave the Police (2) $10 ransom notes on 9-22 that came from Hauptmann's rent payment. However, instead of accepting this as fact, since it's a really damning bit of evidence, I went to the actual source documentation which clearly disproves it. Newspaper Reports can have value but it's important to also realize both Reporters and Newspapers were trying to make money and were often reckless in their reporting. The Police would read the papers every day then go out and investigate the articles. I have a ton of Police Reports where they'd interview someone who would claim they never said what they were quoted as saying. So unlike Fisher, we have to be careful. Fisher uses no source for the above but still makes it sound correct. Do you know otherwise? As I said, I don't make stuff up but can't speak for Fisher in that regard. Jack, I don't even bother looking up his "stuff" anymore because he's wrong so often. It makes no sense to me that Stanley Keith would have anything to do with Ransom Money. As far as I know Fisher is the only source for this and of course there's no footnote for it. That's not to say I have everything so it's possible he has a source I've never seen, or missed, and he forgot to cite it. But honestly Keith didn't even enter this case until October 19th. Dr. Gettler, on the other hand, was in right there in NY and had previously examined Ransom Money. Here's what one FBI Report says: On the floor of the garage were heavy wooden planks, and the two middle planks, according to Agent Sisk, were loose. These were taken up with the aid of a grappler and it was noticed that the ground in one spot had been recently spaded up. Agent Sisk dug up the fresh ground and approximately one foot underground found a large jug of a cylinder shape, about 10" high and about 8" in diameter. This jug had about an inch of water at the bottom of it and had a piece of cloth fastened around the top so that it could be pulled up easily. According to Lt. Finn, the consensus among the Police was that it had contained Ransom Money at one time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 11:25:23 GMT -5
I think I can find what newspaper (date & publication) if you think you can get the paper - re: Rausch info.. It's a Lindbergh story of course. I am going to post a link to a newspaper article I came across on Pauline Rauch supposedly getting two $10.00 gold notes from Hauptmann. I don't believe she received ransom money from Hauptmann to pay the rent. Had that been true, she would have been on the witness stand in Flemington testifying. Wilentz would have used this if it were true. If she had in her possession any gold certificates, I am sure the serial numbers would have been checked which would have revealed they were not ransom ones. Not everything that ended up in print was true. Like Michael says, it takes research, and lots of it, in order to know what is fact and what is not. Not all writers do it to the extent Michael has. Waller's book was before there was access to the NJSP archives and the FBI documents. I wonder how his book would have turned out if he had that access. Link to newspaper story: news.google.com/newspapers?id=ac0gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5GoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4984%2C5991651
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 11:47:01 GMT -5
Newspaper Reports can have value but it's important to also realize both Reporters and Newspapers were trying to make money and were often reckless in their reporting. The Police would read the papers every day then go out and investigate the articles. I have a ton of Police Reports where they'd interview someone who would claim they never said what they were quoted as saying. So unlike Fisher, we have to be careful. Speaking about newspaper stories, I wanted to check with you about something I read about the Fisch family. After the Hauptmann trial was over, according to the newspapers, the Fisch family filed with the state of NJ for reimbursement of $1500 dollars for expenses incurred by them to come to Flemington to testify on behalf of Isidor. I was surprised by that. I always assumed the Fisch family's expenses were covered by New Jersey. Other witnesses received expense money. Apparently, Wilentz was not inclined to pay these expenses too quickly. I found another article dealing with the Fisch family's claim in 1937 when Gov. Hoffman finally paid them $3500 dollars!! Can you explain what went on with the Fisch family and their claim for funds. They ended up with $2000 more than they originally asked for. Link to article asking for $1500. news.google.com/newspapers?id=-q9QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7yEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2560%2C590399
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2015 13:40:44 GMT -5
I believe there's something to the Rauch gold bills being part of the ransom money because each of these bills would be long after gold bills were called in. Why would Richard still be spending good gold bills which would call attention possibly eventually to the stash in the garage. I think he was broke and down to the tens.
If the detectives lumped the Rauch bills with the garage bills there might be one out of the passing order which was early on mentioned in the case; although by passing order investigators could have meant that the fives were generally spent first then tens, etc.
Speaking of fives the following statement from FBI files is of interest:
A five dollar ransom note was passed at the Pennsylvania Railroad Station Nov 23, 1933 and in investigating that particular bill cashier James MacWhan, a Penn. Railway employee related the following story. On Tuesday evening Nov. 21, 1933 at about 10:00 PM a male individual approached him and inquired whether he, MacWhan would exchange a number of five dollar bills for other currency. The individual was described as being 5'5" tall, weight 145 pounds, dark complexion, no glasses, no scars, poorly dressed, wearing a soft, dirty light brown hat, brown overcoat and being of Italian or Jewish extraction. He exhibited no bills and did not buy a ticket but merely inquired as to whether MacWhan would exchange some five dollar bills for other currency. During the conversation the stranger stated that on his person he had about 100 - $5 bills. MacWhan commented that they would have to be "good bills." The stranger was then observed to not go to another teller's window, but left the station by the 33rd street exit. The stranger had not been seen before nor has he been seen since.
Fisch?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2015 13:44:07 GMT -5
Also, it seems to me that the newspaper story mentioning the Dec. or Jan. Rauch ransom gold bill from Hauptmann was in the Sep. 24, 1934 New York Times.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2015 16:07:46 GMT -5
Can you explain what went on with the Fisch family and their claim for funds. They ended up with $2000 more than they originally asked for. In a nutshell: The Fisch Family asserted that a deal had been made with Detective Johnson that several claims would be guaranteed. They claimed this was in a contract they signed at the American Consulate before they made their trip to the U.S. for the Trial. According to Wilentz, $2000 had been forwarded to Germany for this purpose and that all of their expenses were paid while in the U.S. (see letter below). The sticking point seemed to be the "lost wages" and/or "business loses" part of the deal. Wilentz would later write to State Senator Clifford Powell conceding that the Fisch Family may have a "moral claim againt New Jersey" but that was for Powell's committee to decide. On June 1, 1937, the State Legislature signed an Act authorizing $3500 to the Fisch Family to cover their expenses. I don't know if this was in addition to the $2000 that had been forwarded to Germany in 1934 or not. But if it was that would leave $1500. I believe there's something to the Rauch gold bills being part of the ransom money because each of these bills would be long after gold bills were called in. Why would Richard still be spending good gold bills which would call attention possibly eventually to the stash in the garage. I think he was broke and down to the tens. I think this assumes he did based upon the newspaper articles. If the detectives lumped the Rauch bills with the garage bills there might be one out of the passing order which was early on mentioned in the case; although by passing order investigators could have meant that the fives were generally spent first then tens, etc. The Reports are very specific as to the Ransom Money found in Hauptmann's garage. If they "lumped" (2) Ransom Bills which Pauline Rauch handed them with the other money they found in the garage that would amount to a major conspiracy involving at least (5) Law Enforcement Officers from (3) different Agencies and they'd have to conspired to harm their own case. A five dollar ransom note was passed at the Pennsylvania Railroad Station Nov 23, 1933 and in investigating that particular bill cashier James MacWhan, a Penn. Railway employee related the following story. On Tuesday evening Nov. 21, 1933 at about 10:00 PM a male individual approached him and inquired whether he, MacWhan would exchange a number of five dollar bills for other currency. I could look this up in the files if you're interested - just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 24, 2015 17:17:05 GMT -5
A five dollar ransom note was passed at the Pennsylvania Railroad Station Nov 23, 1933 and in investigating that particular bill cashier James MacWhan, a Penn. Railway employee related the following story. On Tuesday evening Nov. 21, 1933 at about 10:00 PM a male individual approached him and inquired whether he, MacWhan would exchange a number of five dollar bills for other currency. The individual was described as being 5'5" tall, weight 145 pounds, dark complexion, no glasses, no scars, poorly dressed, wearing a soft, dirty light brown hat, brown overcoat and being of Italian or Jewish extraction. He exhibited no bills and did not buy a ticket but merely inquired as to whether MacWhan would exchange some five dollar bills for other currency. During the conversation the stranger stated that on his person he had about 100 - $5 bills. MacWhan commented that they would have to be "good bills." The stranger was then observed to not go to another teller's window, but left the station by the 33rd street exit. The stranger had not been seen before nor has he been seen since.
Fisch?
Jack, I wonder if James McWhan was ever shown a photograph of Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 24, 2015 17:38:46 GMT -5
The remark by Alsofrom regarding gold certificates, "You don't get many of these bills anymore," would have been inappropriate for the purported date of this cigar store transaction: March 1, 1933. That would be three days BEFORE Roosevelt's inauguration, and BEFORE new rules were promulgated making gold certificates illegal and forcing people to hand in their gold and gold notes by May 1 of that year. So either the date is incorrect or Alsofrom's memory of what he said isn't too sharp. And if his memory was fuzzy, it reduces his credibility with respect to his attempted identification of Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 24, 2015 20:07:50 GMT -5
I believe there's something to the Rauch gold bills being part of the ransom money because each of these bills would be long after gold bills were called in... It seems you've decided something took place when the primary sources don't mention this happening, at all. However, if it did, you can bet Wilentz would have called on her to testify regarding this fact, since it disproved the one alibi he had - the Fisch story.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 24, 2015 20:13:52 GMT -5
Not sure Stella. When Hauptmann was finally accused of TLC a lot (all?) of the investigation stopped except of course things directly related to him. Alsofrom went to the police himself when he saw BRH's picture in the paper. Fisch's only involvement in the crime is by Hauptmann or questionable hearsay. Though everyone seemed to have heard of the "Fisch story," possibly not a lot was known at the time about Fisch or what he looked like.
So if MacWhan never even saw his picture he could have slipped by.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 2:39:19 GMT -5
Michael:
I'll take you up on seeing if you have a file, but not the FBI Penn. Station one.
See if there's one on NJSP and/or FBI for statement or interview of Mrs. Rauch and Mrs. Urant at the Rauch address.
Thanks, Jack
The above newspaper date should Sep. 28, 1934 - p 8, New York Times.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 25, 2015 6:22:55 GMT -5
Not sure Stella. When Hauptmann was finally accused of TLC a lot (all?) of the investigation stopped except of course things directly related to him. Alsofrom went to the police himself when he saw BRH's picture in the paper. Fisch's only involvement in the crime is by Hauptmann or questionable hearsay. Though everyone seemed to have heard of the "Fisch story," possibly not a lot was known at the time about Fisch or what he looked like. So if MacWhan never even saw his picture he could have slipped by. One of the things I put the least amount of stock in is those people who turned up based solely on a newspaper identification. The scenario would be different if Alsofrom happened to see Hauptmann in the paper, charged with burglary or some other crime, then approached the police with a memory of him passing a Lindbergh note. Instead, the papers were reporting him as the Lindbergh suspect and there was no chance for an untainted ID. While some eyewitnesses might be fine, there is case after case of criminal defendants who were ID'd and later found to be factually innocent of the crimes in which they were convicted, based almost exclusively on testimony from those who claimed to have observed things firsthand. So while I place some trust in these individuals, they always have to be double checked. The Oscar-winning documentary "Murder on a Sunday Morning" is basically about this topic and it didn't end well for the eyewitness, who was literally three feet away from the crime. Unless somebody who was an early witness happened to visit police headquarters prior to any newspaper reporting and observe a lineup, I'm inclined to doubt almost all "eyewitnesses" in this case.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 11:14:20 GMT -5
Oh, NYPD on that request too please, Michael.
TX
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 11:34:06 GMT -5
I agree USC, direct observation is a poor witness.
But this stuff is actually just interesting speculation which really doesn't mean much. In the case of the possible Fisch observation it would mean that he was passing bills, but no way to absolutely prove anything now.
Seems Alsofrom's statement declined pretty quickly when talking to the officers. I remember when I went in to talk with detectives about a stolen car once and they were really gruff - had me take my shirt off and roll up my pants - looking for injuries I guess because the car had been in an accident which stopped the theft. I remember thinking hey, what the heck's goin' on - my car was stolen and I go through this? I wasn't about to argue with those guys though - v tough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting that letter. So New Jersey did pick up the tab for the Fisch family while they were here. I guess the $2000.00 was to cover all those expenses plus travel to and from this country. The $1500.00 they wanted in addition must have been to cover lost wages, etc. I guess that makes sense.
Jack, I don't think that Alsofrom's physical description of the cigar buyer matches Hauptmann. The long thin face and being 40 years old just doesn't suggest Hauptmann to me. I believe Hauptmann did smoke cigars sometimes, though. Wasn't there an earlier cigar purchase made with ransom money before this one? I wonder if there is a physical description available for that one?
When we talk about Fisch being into hot money, does hot money also include counterfeit money? Could Fisch have been passing counterfeit gold certs? If certain types of people got their hands on the serial number lists for the Lindbergh ransom, would it be possible to produce fake bills from those lists?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 20:26:31 GMT -5
I think Alsofrom's sighting/id was Hauptmann but really Wilentz didn't need him. He would have only established that BRH had ransom bills prior to late Aug. '34.
Sisk testified under oath that Richard had told him that he'd had the garage cash in the underfloor crock and though Hauptmann interrupted Sisk, the jury heard the proclamation. This of course meant long term possession of the bills, plus he'd stated that he'd dried them off in baskets, etc., so the entire court, country, jury, everybody saw his 3 week in the garage story was a bunch of BS.
Yes, at least three bills were passed at cigar stores, quite a few at restaurants, a couple gas stations, and sundry places.
Did you know a ransom bill showed up at Condon's bank?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2015 20:41:59 GMT -5
See if there's one on NJSP and/or FBI for statement or interview of Mrs. Rauch and Mrs. Urant at the Rauch address. Jack - this is something I looked into years ago. I actually went through the entire 1600 collection on one occasion specifically for this. The only place I've ever seen it were the various newspaper articles. What I did find I posted earlier, but anything specific about Pauline handing over ransom isn't at the NJSP Archives. My experience with the files tells me that even if one is missing, there would be mention of actual ransom being turned over in follow ups. So for me, it either never happened OR the money she handed over wasn't what the newspapers were claiming. She may have thought so, and told others about it, but if that was ransom money I am absolutely positive it would be mentioned somewhere in one of the thousands upon thousands of reports I have read. Of course no one bats a 1000, but I would recommend to anyone who doubts me on this specific event that they don't waste their time searching for evidence of it at the NJSP Archives because it definitely isn't there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 21:13:49 GMT -5
I kinda' suspected that.
Do you know if Waller's European Edition "Kidnap" was footnoted? It does have an index I've heard. I'm on European Ebay, maybe I can find a copy.
I'm developing an outlandish theory about the Pauline situation because it's beyond belief that somebody didn't talk to her, especially with the many police running around.
I guess just before Richard was arrested neighbors called the police about all the suits wandering around the neighborhood and they turned out to be FBI.
Now my outlandish theory won't need a heck of a lot of comment.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 25, 2015 21:34:37 GMT -5
Amy:
No physical descriptions other than Alsoform's, and the later ones (shoes, etc.) which have always been attributed to Richard. There are several unknown male and that first unknown female (where the woman grabbed the bill back) which I think was bogus.
Did you know that about the time of the Faulkner passing at the bank (deadline for calling in gold) there were several other large exchanges. No names for those because not all banks required them.
A lot of the bill transactions note that at the time of Hauptmann's arrest the investigation of the exchange or passing was still in progress. I wonder if any of those were followed up with.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2015 14:53:22 GMT -5
Do you know if Waller's European Edition "Kidnap" was footnoted? It does have an index I've heard. I'm on European Ebay, maybe I can find a copy. I have no idea. The guy to ask about this is Sam Bornstein - if anyone knows it would be him. I'm developing an outlandish theory about the Pauline situation because it's beyond belief that somebody didn't talk to her, especially with the many police running around. They spoke to her alright. There's a couple of reports with information coming from her. One was about the temporary lighting Hauptmann would sometimes string so he could work at night. This was the one Police were trying to call an "alarm." Some of the things she told Police came out in the Hoffman investigations - like the time she told Troopers she heard Hauptmann in his apartment on the night of March 1st hearing through the walls a conversation what she thought was a plan to burn down the house for insurance money. As you know, there's a multitude of newspaper articles to consult as well. There's one where she said Hauptmann was a Nazi and hated her because she was Jewish. So I get the feeling she talked a great deal. Anyway, there's numerous reports that specifically list what bills were found as connected to Hauptmann and who were the witnesses to them. All of them to include those passed which led to his arrest, and those found afterwards. I've also found instances where people were calling the Police to give the serial #s of bills they thought could be ransom money and they'd check them right over the phone and no report was ever made of it excepting what I know because it's recorded in the phone logs. If it wasn't there would be no record.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 26, 2015 15:01:27 GMT -5
I ordered the European version of "Kidnap."
So far I've made an identification of my theory and after the book comes I'll make a presentation of that theory. It's simple - the identification process is what you know yourself and the presentation is what you express to others - hopefully at an opportune time when you can get lots of attention.
|
|