|
Letters
Mar 21, 2013 7:38:30 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 21, 2013 7:38:30 GMT -5
Checking Falzini’s chapter on Mueller, I see that he continued to work as a waiter after the ransom payment. There seems to have been no change in lifestyle and no evidence of enrichment. Amy, I think the removal of his name from the mailbox was probably just to furnish privacy for himself (and especially for Anna and the baby) after Anna moved in, with all the publicity raging in the newspapers.
But Amy, I still really like the way you explained the taxi business. Perrone’s unusually short fare, just before he got the message for Condon, combined with the evidence of apparent lookouts at the cemetery, suggests the movements you describe, even if one of the men wasn’t necessarily Hans.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2013 15:07:03 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 21, 2013 15:07:03 GMT -5
Amy, you're welcome, but the thanks is really owed to others who have provided me with the information over the years.
I'm not aware of any evidence of enrichment for Hans. He seemed to be in a constant state of penury. So that is definitely something that has to be addressed in any theory which involves him. I think the question is what value would be attached to whatever support he might have supplied. Hauptmann accounts for the vast majority of the money, but there is room for a minor player. So if Hans was an accessory after the fact, then maybe his involvement was low-level enough not to warrant a big share. But then, if his assistance was so minor why the need for an accomplice at all? It by no means adds up.
I'm afraid I can't agree with any connection between Hauptmann and Fisch at the time of the kidnapping. There is no evidence of that and by the common consent of all involved they didn't meet until later. However, there is some evidence to suggest the possibility of a link between Hans and Fisch. It's not my research so I'm not in a position to share at the moment.
Hans' physical appearance doesn't to me match any of the various possible lookouts etc. Nor is he anywhere close to CJ. His handwriting that I have seen doesn't look like any of the ransom notes.
It's a fascinating question of what role, if any, he had. To my mind, nobody else fits so if there was an accomplice, it was him.
Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2013 19:31:48 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2013 19:31:48 GMT -5
Hi Rab, I totally respect your position on Hauptmann, Fisch and Mueller. For me, so far, I see it a bit differently. I think someone else was involved in some capacity. I don't see Hans as CJ or even in view when the Condon/CJ meetings took place. Condon thought there was another person in the background at each of those meetings. I think it could have been Hans. Just where I am at with this right now.
I am most appreciative of anything that you share with me. If we all thought alike this board would no longer exist! I shall give some thought to the idea of Hauptmann being alone. I am not sure how he would have arranged for the taxi to be where he needed it to be on March 12th without some assistance. I shall think on it though. I don't know enough about this case to close my thinking on any facet of it right now.
Amy
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2013 20:49:58 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2013 20:49:58 GMT -5
This is one that would be hard to prove either way. I think you have a guy in Fisch who was always both conning people, and keeping people he knew purposely apart for various reasons.
Once Hauptmann was caught with this Ransom he quickly blamed Fisch then absolutely had no choice but to then distance himself from him prior to the Kidnapping. There was that one instance when the Authorities found those serials on the back of the door then (thinking at the time they were Ransom Serials) asked Hauptmann if he wrote them. He said he did but offered the explanation they were large bills given to him by Fisch in a year that predated his supposed first meeting him.
The Investigators immediately pounced on it and confronted Hauptmann with that fact to which the now infamous reply was made: Well now I am in the bag.
The other point is about the "enrichment" factor behind involvement. I've always felt (and I know there will be those who disagree) that Hauptmann could have been "banking" the money for those who were involved with him. This idea that he could make more money with whatever their share was. He's doing this with Fisch in the "partnership" although exactly what Fisch risked is debatable (I am working on this). He also did this for people with their own hard earned money - so I don't think it far fetched he would with Ransom as well.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2013 22:15:09 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 21, 2013 22:15:09 GMT -5
It would seem theoretically plausible that Hauptmann could have been investing Hans’s share. They wouldn’t necessarily divvy up the loot two (or three) ways right after the ransom payment. As a relatively experienced stock trader, Hauptmann would be the logical investor, and would have less trouble than the impoverished Hans explaining to other people why he had large sums in his accounts.
Still, you’d think that after two years, Hans would have more enrichment to show for than the Radiola.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 22, 2013 8:31:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2013 8:31:17 GMT -5
I thought that the two $500 bills that Hauptmann wrote the serial numbers for on the door in his apartment represented money he lent to Fisch to invest in the Knickerboker Pie Company. I read in Gardner's book that Fisch gave Schlesser 3 $500 bills to invest in the pie company. Could two of those bills have come from Hauptmann? I think that Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other in 1931.
I think that when this extortion was planned for $50,000 it was with the understanding that Hauptmann would invest the bulk of the money for them. I think the old adage "It takes money to make money" was the thinking behind this extortion.......and they all wanted to make money.
Poor Hans, it seems, remained so. It appears he never realized any gain for the risk he took being involved with this. I am sure he could get an occasional "loan" from BRH but the control of the money remained firmly in the hands of Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 5:44:08 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 23, 2013 5:44:08 GMT -5
Ok, some more on Hans, good and bad, depending on your viewpoint. Again, this is the work of another researcher.
- There is the possibility of a connection to Fisch. You have to start with Mrs Hile, who was Karl Henkel's mother (the Henkels, of course, introduced Fisch to Hauptmann and Karl roomed with Fisch before the former's marriage to Gerta) as well as probably the biggest victim of Fisch's Ponzi schemes. Hans was a waiter and prior to 1932 worked (amongst other places) at The Little Hollywood on East 86th Street. That establishment became The Little Paradise in which Mrs Hile was a partner. So there is a roundabout connection.
- Hans and Condon. I've already posted that Mueller lived a block and a half from Condon. However, during a crucial part of the negotiations, he was even closer. Hans couldn't afford to pay the rent on his apartment. He had lost his job on February 18 and only started another at the end of March (of which more later). Hans Willers was a fellow waiter of Hans M and he and his wife Edna offered Hans M and Maria a place to stay. Hans and Maria moved in on April 1. Hans W and Enda lived at 2986 Marion Ave, Apt. D9. The building is quite tall and if D9 refers to the 9th floor, it's possible that they were able look down on Condon's house, giving him a bird's eye view on the comings and goings, depending on what side of the building the apartment was located.
- Additionally on the above point, if you read the jailhouse conversations between Hauptmann and Anna there is quite a bit of back and forth about when Hans moved. There seems to be an attempt, for some reason, not to place it on April 1, though Hans himself admitted in interrogation to that date.
- However, Hans did start that new job towards the end of March. He was working 7pm to 7am. So he couldn't have been at the payoff. Neither does he match the description of any of the possible lookouts. His handwriting doesn't match. He had no enrichment.
On this question of Hauptmann being the banker, well, I don't really buy it. There is no evidence of Hauptmann investing money on anyone's behalf, though it is something he tried to promote. He did invest small sums of his own money for some people and give them the modest profits. I think this was an inducement for them to invest with him. But there's no evidence anyone ever did. If he was banking money for an accomplice then surely that accomplice would expect to see something back at some point? Hautpmann was at liberty with the ransom for two and half years, that would try the patience of even the most understanding accomplice. Hans at no point showed any enrichment. So it's hard to reconcile that.
However, as always in this case, where one door closes, another opens. There was someone close to Hauptmann who did show unexplained enrichment. More later.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 6:29:06 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 23, 2013 6:29:06 GMT -5
So, for the sake of balance, if we look to enrichment, there are other more likely contenders for the role of accomplice. Step forward Ernst Schoeffler, brother of Anna. Elements of this are also the work of other researchers. Ernst also played in the stock market. He opened an account at EA Pierce on January 28 1934 with a cash deposit of $1,000. Hauptmann also had an account there, opened at around the same time. As well as the original $1,000, Ernst deposited $225 in cash on June 3 1934. He wasn't any better an investor than Hauptmann and eventually was left with stocks worth only $400. So, where did this money come from, especially considering over many years Hauptmann had been giving / lending money to Ernst. The answer - or at least Ernst's answer - was that he got the money as repayment of a loan of $1,450 from a Mrs Marie Hohlock. He said he deposited the repayment to his savings account at the Bay Ridge Savings Account, Flatbush and then drew $1,000 to buy stock. But he only opened the Bay Ridge account on January 6 1934 and made two deposits, one of $150 on January 6 and one of $1,000 on January 9 (not $1,450), this being the $1,000 withdrawn to start the EA Pierce account on January 26. The deposit to the Bay Ridge account on January 9 was actually of a check from another of Ernst's accounts, at the Brooklyn Trust, an account closed June 6 1934. This, of course, raises two questions: where did Ernst get $1,450 to lend to Mrs Hohlock in the first place and who exactly was Mrs Hohlock? Let's deal with the money first. The answer is: we don't know. Because Ernst seems over the years to have had money (he had a restaurant business at one point) yet throughout this time he was borrowing money from the Hauptmanns. Some of Ernst's financial history: he opened a savings account at a bank in Ridgewood, Queens with a deposit of $50 on September 23 1925. Throughout the balance of the year, he made deposits of $30, $65, $70 and $80 and continued to deposit money in it. The largest deposit he made was $150 in 1929. He also made some large withdrawals: $600 and $500 in 1927, $700 and $1,000 in 1930, $375 in 1931 and $1,100 on August 2 1932 (just before Hauptmann opened his Steiner Rouse account). So what was he doing with this money and why did he need to borrow money from Hauptmann between the years 1926 to 1928? Ernst closed this Queens account on January 16 1933, the day the Hauptmanns departed for Florida. Was Ernst trying to hide something? Why open a new account in Flatbush to deposit the repayment from Hohlock (if indeed that's where the money came from)? And then to Mrs Hohlock. Well, a Maria (not Mary or Marie) Hohlock appears in one of Hauptmann's address books with an address at 98 E 237th St. Her entry is directly below one for Ernst with a German address. It seems that the registered owner of the house at 98 E 237th Street (which is quite near to Woodlawn) was a Mary Hohlock who was born in 1874 in Germany and emigrated to the US in1891. She married at 19 but by 1930 she was a widow so "Hohlock" may have been her married name. The house was worth $35,000 in 1930 and she had an employee living in the building with her named Otto (age 35 in 1930). By 1934 the house had been empty for a couple of years so perhaps she lost it in the Depression and perhaps that's why she needed a loan from Ernst. But that raises the question of how she paid the loan back. From a report by Detective Patterson of the NJSP, November 8 1934: Marie Hohlock, 98 East 237th Street: Proceeded to this address which is a vacant house. Was advised by a Real Estate Agent that Marie Hohlock was the owner of the home, but had lost this property about two years ago...through a Mrs Merkt learned that Marie Hohlock is running a rooming house on the top floor of 600 W 144th St. Interviewed MH, but she was reluctant to give us any information concerning Hauptmann, but stated that he was employed by her doing odd jobs on the property owned by her at one time. She stated she could not remember the days or the approximate dates. When questioned concerning Schoefflers, she stated that she owed one of them some money but that she had not seen Schoeffler for quite a period of time. She stated that she has not seen Hauptmann for several years and that this was all the information that she would give. If this woman had any information, she would not give it; leaving the room several times while being questioned. Now, of note from the above, apart from her reluctance to help, was that her address in later 1934 was only five blocks from the J.J. Faulkner address. Of the E 237th Street address, I believe it was a rooming house and that perhaps Hauptmann did oddjobs for her. Whether Ernst introduced her to Hauptmann or the other way round, I don't know. I suppose one could imply that their proximity in the address book is somehow meaningful. I have no idea whether Ernst was involved or not. But he was certainly enriched at some point in a very mysterious manner. Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 10:38:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 10:38:57 GMT -5
WOW!!! This is alot to take in at once. I feel like I am trying to figure out the impact of derivatives on the stock market. I do have questions for you Rab. Starting with Hans Mueller. Firstly, if Hans were involved with Hauptmann in the extortion of the money, I don't see him as an outfront man. I think his assistance would have been with securing the taxi for Hauptmann, influencing the selection of Condon as intermediary, possibly helping with the composition of the Boad Nelly note and being at the cemeteries in the background. Hans probably knew Condon and would have been recognizable on sight by Condon so he remained in the background at these meetings. In Falzini's chapter on Hans, Mark says that Mueller secured the new job in mid March and worked the 7pm to 7am shift for the first two weeks. Potentially, based on the actual start date of the job, Hans may have been available for the April 2nd cemetery ransom exchange. I don't know if it was Hans or not but someone was at St Raymonds along with CJ. CJ asked Condon if he wanted to meet "John". If Condon is to be believed, someone else was there with CJ in the cemetary that night. My question - Is the start date for the job Hans started in March 1932 known? I would be able to eliminate him for sure if April 2nd fell during those first two weeks. The possibility that Hans knew Fisch before Hauptmann did is very interesting. They would of had Mrs. Hile in common. It is possible that Fisch ate in the restaurant sometimes along with Karl Henkel. I see the possibility in such a meeting occuring. My question - Hauptmann has known Hans since 1928. What do you think of the possibility that Hans may have introduced Fisch to Hauptmann while working at the restaurant? I have been considering the involvement of one of the Schoefflers in the extortion activities also which is why I asked previously on another thread if any of them might be indebted to Hauptmann. I am still of the belief that Hauptmann's unwillingness to implicate anyone in the crime is because of family involvement either during or after the crime. This is why I am looking so hard at Mueller and also considering some of Anna's family members. Looking at and then trying to understand Ernst Schoeffler's finances is difficult. This does raise questions for me. Question #1 - Was Ernst gainfully employed from 1925 thru 1934 that he could have amassed enough money to counter all the withdrawals, especially the larger ones from his accounts? Questions #2 - Do any of Ernst loans from Hauptmann correlate with any of the deposits made by Ernst to his savings accounts? Question #3 - Did Hauptmann make a loan to Ernst that would have made it possible for Schoeffler to loan Mrs. Holock money? Question #4 - If Hauptmann had control of the ransom money in his savings and stock accounts how do we reconcile any of the ransom money being the source for Schoeffler's funds for opening his own investment accounts? Wouldn't there be withdrawals of funds leaving Hauptmann's accounts and not returning? The prosecution, supposedly, could account for over $49,000 dollars being invested by Hauptmann through his own accounts. Question #5 - In doing research on this case, have you ever encountered any information that Ernst, Mueller, Fisch and even Hauptmann could have been involved in and subsequently receiving monies from bootlegging activities? A lot of questions, I know. I don't know what answers, if any, you may be able to offer me. You always give me so much to think about! I thank you for all the information you are sharing.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 11:19:41 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 23, 2013 11:19:41 GMT -5
I can think of one way to reconcile Hans Mueller’s involvement with lack of enrichment. That would be if the kidnapping was carried out for a purpose other than financial gain—i.e., the ransom was secondary, and a cover for something else that was going on.
The Mersman table suggested Nazi party involvement, and I believe that is also Jack’s thesis. While I consider that there are MANY problems with this thesis, it could explain the fact that Hans didn’t mind the lack of enrichment, because he did it for what he considered a greater cause (i.e., German patriotism—loyalty to the Fatherland). This could also explain Hauptmann’s willingness to face the chair and refusal to rat out any accomplice—if there was something higher at stake than just a gang and money.
However this thesis has a lot of problems. (1) I know that Jack has suggested that Hauptmann came over as a Nazi “sleeper agent”; however, when BRH came to the U.S., the Nazis were nothing more than a fledgling party. They had enough to contend with in their own country, without planning for future intrigues in America. (2) I see no evidence that Hauptmann was a politically motivated individual. (3) Even in the year of the kidnapping (1932), the Nazis were not yet in power in Germany (though very much on the rise). I believe they would not yet have controlled Germany’s embassies and consulates, which one would think necessary to undertake a major intelligence operation overseas. (4) Kidnapping Lindy’s kid would be about the stupidest thing the Nazis could have done—if caught, they would have faced international condemnation even before they took power. And they surely knew that Lindbergh was courageous and would not be easily intimidated. Furthermore, even during World War I Lindbergh’s father was accused of being pro-German—not exactly a family they would want to punish. (5) Although the Germans were excellent soldiers, they never scored very high marks for foreign intelligence operations. Britain’s MI6 ran rings around them in this regard.
HOWEVER—there is one bit of testimony that has always troubled me in this area, and that is the deposition of William H. Wright, which I posted in full in the thread “What Does the Wright Deposition Mean?” (found currently on page 2 of “General Discussion.”)
Wright stated that he was an intelligence officer with the Army Air Corps in South America at the time of the kidnapping. He made a very detailed statement. Rab, since you are back on the board, I would appreciate hearing your take on it when you have a chance.
Wright’s statement (to me at least) had a lot of hallmarks of credibility. However, there were two major problems with it: (1) He said Charlie had been taken to South America. This would be impossible in light of the evidence that the corpse found was Charlie (unless one takes the highly unlikely position that the body was returned from South America to New Jersey). (2) Wright’s description of Isidor Fisch contradicts much of what we know about Fisch, unless Wright confused him with somebody else, or someone was posing as Fisch.
Despite these two issues with Wright’s statement, the rest of it sounds credible enough to keep me wondering about it. He was one of the few individuals to tie the kidnapping to the Nazis, and in light of the Mersman table “confession,” and Lindbergh’s ties to South American aviation and later to Germany, I have never been able to dismiss Wright’s deposition outright.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 14:00:32 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2013 14:00:32 GMT -5
I don't want to disrupt the flow of the thread but I am forced to post stuff as I think about it or it will get too far along then I'll either let the point go or forget about it....
I believe any good scam shows a little profit before enticing someone to get greedy. This could be going on here, but I think the only way to know is to check the stock to actually see if it made money or not in order to justify the profit. In this case (below) it does. Also, according to this Report, Hauptmann actually took money from someone else for the purposes of stock investment. I believe there are more examples of this fact and I can check if need be.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 14:07:25 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2013 14:07:25 GMT -5
You weren't alone in your suspicions Rab. Note the first page of this FBI Memo (written by E. A. Tamm) and 'why' they didn't act on it:
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 17:12:34 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 23, 2013 17:12:34 GMT -5
For Amy:
- Hans said he got his job between March 27 and 30. So he would have been working on April 2. I'm not aware of any corroborating evidence of the claim but there might be some investigation of it.
- Did Hans introduce Fisch to Hauptmann? Well, we don't even know that Hans knew Fisch, just that there was a possibility of them being in the same circles. But remember that that area about E 86th Street (Yorkville) was very heavily German so there are bound to be connections, not all of them meaningful. I still firmly believe that Hauptmann didn't meet Fisch until July 1933 and that is what everyone originally agree on until Hautpmann later decided to claim otherwise.
- Ernst was employed but there is some mystery in that he was borrowing money from the Hauptmanns when examination of his bank accounts shows he seemed to have enough money of his own. However, he may have had short-term expenses and he was involved in various businesses so it's possible his finances fluctuated. Ironically, at the time of the kidnapping he had significantly more money in his account than the Hauptmanns did in theirs.
- I don't see any correlation between loans to Ernst and deposits to his accounts but I'll have to delve further into Hauptmann's notebooks. There were a lot of loans.
- I don't see any evidence of a loan from Hauptmann to Ernst to account for the Hohlock amount. Certainly nothing that came from a bank account. But that doesn't preclude Hauptmann giving Ernst cash from his seemingly endless supply.
- Forget the prosecution claim that Hauptmann accounted for $49,000 or $50,000. It's nonsense. He accounted for the majority of it, maybe all of it but it's not as cut and dried as they presented.
- There are reports of Hans having been arrested for bootlegging. Though given he was an illegal immigrant I'm not sure why that wouldn't have resulted in his deportation. He worked in speakeasies. It wouldn't surprise me at all that he and Hauptmann attempted to make some easy money that way.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 18:05:42 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 23, 2013 18:05:42 GMT -5
For BR: I've read the Wright statement. I think you've already pointed out the many flaws yourself. Certainly it has a lot of detail and that can be indicative of some element of truth but in terms of the central points which supposedly link it to the Lindbergh case they don't really stand up to any scrutiny. I think you are right that Fisch's application for a US passport in May 1932 doesn't preclude him from having a German passport. But there is no evidence of him travelling to South America or Germany or anywhere else from when he arrived in the US in 1925. We can check those records easily at the various genealogy sites and there are no passenger records. What we can also see is that Isidor Fisch is not as uncommon a name as you might think so perhaps that is the banal explanation. I think one way to take this further would be the get a copy of William Wright's military service record: www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/That would at least tell us if the starting point is an honest one. Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2013 22:38:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 22:38:35 GMT -5
Rab,
Thank you for sharing when Hans started that job. He could not have been at St. Raymonds that night.
Hauptmann always seemed to have money available whenever someone needed it. No wonder he had so many notebooks! Were the loans Hauptmann made to others always repaid?
I don't really trust the report of the prosecution witness. When you invest money you do so to make money. Everytime Hauptmann sold stock or invested in companies that made profits for him that money would become a part of his financial picture. After a while I don't see how they could be sure how much was ransom money and what was profit from his sold stocks and investments to come up with the figure that they did. Plus if Hauptman did invest through his market accounts monies that other people gave him (letter that Michael posted above) that would have needed to be taken into consideration when they audited his funds.
The fact that Hans ended up with nothing if he was an accomplice does work in his favor for having no involvement with the ransom extortion. I have thought about the possibility that if he did receive some money it never went into a bank account but could have been used to pay other debts he owed privately.
I have read that Hans did not trust Fisch and was not happy about Hauptmann investing money into a partnership with Fisch. He felt that Hauptmann should have put something in writing to protect his investment. I wonder why that mattered so much to Hans if it wasn't any of his money that was being invested?
Amy
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2013 3:52:08 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 25, 2013 3:52:08 GMT -5
For Amy: - I'm not aware of any instances of Hauptmann waiving loans. He kept records in his notebooks of loans and repayments. Whether it's a fully comprehensive accounting is hard to say. Most of the loans were for small amounts but there are occasionally larger ones. It's not clear whether all the money given to Ernst was to be repaid. - I don't know that we can say he always had money available. There was a point up to 1929 when he did and certainly he did after April 1932. The times in between were a bit more parsimonious. He lost very heavily in his initial foray in the stock market in 1929 and by early 1932 he was suffering financially. Of course, his notebooks are rather obviously missing in terms of detail for 1930 to 32. - I think you are right not to place too much emphasis on the prosecution accounting. It is very misleading. However, I would also caution taking the Kennedy route of claiming all of Hauptmann's cash deposits were churn of the same money from account to account. That is just as deceptive. The reality is that Hautpmann's stock purchases, his profits and losses are for the most part irrelevant. It's the money he deposited in order to buy the stocks that is important, the money he spent on living expenses. My own accounting uses Hauptmann's net deposits. Which means that if he put $100 in a bank account but later withdrew $100 then I call that 0. This eliminates churn and also accounts for any profits he might have made, withdrawn and reinvested. It is an accounting which is generous to Hauptmann, because not every penny which was withdrawn was redeposited. I have colour-coded transactions which appear to have been linked: homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/all-accounts.htmWhat this shows is that his cash deposits across all accounts peaked at about $18,600. This is unexplained cash. You can add that to his known and presumed income and expenditure for same period: homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/iande.htmThis accounting allows that he had $4,000 in a trunk at home in March 1932, of which there is not a shred of evidence. But I added it for balance. This takes the total to nearly $25,000. Add the money in the garage and what Hauptmann admitted spending and you have $40,000. So there is room for a minor accomplice. But don't allow Hauptmann the $4,000 at home, be less generous in netting all of the cash withdrawals and he could very easily have accounted for the entire $50,000. The financial evidence cannot lie. If Hans did receive money then it could be - as you say - that he already owed it to someone else or otherwise frittered it away without a paper trail. But there is nothing to show him receiving any kind of substantial sum so if he did provide support to Hauptmann it was clearly low value. Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2013 9:57:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2013 9:57:29 GMT -5
Rab,
A couple of questions for you. I am going to take some time to review more closely the spreedsheets you have on Hauptmann's finances. I would like to know the following when reviewing the sheets:
1) On the Accounts sheet - Are all the withdrawal column figures strictly monies that Hauptmann withdrew himself or do they reflect any losses he incurred with his investments?
2) On the Income and Expenditure sheet - Why did you choose to credit him with the trunk money? Have you created a sheet without this amount based solely on known funds available April 2nd 1932?
Amy
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2013 19:35:19 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 25, 2013 19:35:19 GMT -5
In looking over Hauptmann’s accounts, which Rab has so beautifully summarized, it seems that the single biggest problem for Hauptmann would be in explaining the upwards of $10,000 he deposited to his brokerage account in the spring and early summer of 1933. I gather that the assumption is that Hauptmann redeemed gold certificates, which were then becoming illegal, and converted the proceeds into investments. I was curious if Wilentz pounced on this situation and, if so, how Hauptmann explained it. Looking at the trial testimony, I see that Hauptmann stated that Fisch gave him about $15,000 to invest in the stock market, even though he admitted he was only able to document $2,000 as coming from Fisch. While it may be suspicious that there was no written record of the $15,000, I believe there was not even a written contract constituting their partnership, was there? As I undertand it, it was based on trust. While certainly Hauptmann could have been lying about the $15,000, it seems to me within the scope of possibility that it was Fisch, not Hauptmann, redeeming gold certificates, and giving the proceeds to Hauptmann to invest. Indeed, most of the money during this period was flowing into stocks—Hauptmann’s end of the joint venture with Fisch--rather than into Hauptmann’s personal bank accounts, although there is a significant deposit to the latter for $2,000 during the spring-summer 1933 time frame.
If one adds up these bank accounts, and decides that Hauptmann alone had ransom money, and was therefore the sole perp of the LKC, one runs into a lot of problems. Rab, I realize you are definitely NOT excluding other perps, but if only BRH wound up with ransom cash, the conclusion tends to run in that direction. As I have said elsewhere, If BRH was the sole perp, he must have intended to kill Charlie on the night he went to Hopewell, because there was no way, as sole perp, that he could have cared for Charlie 24/7 while the ransom was being negotiated. But how could he anticipate, with any confidence, that he’d get paid the ransom on a dead child? Furthermore, the penalty for murder in 1932 was far stiffer than the penalty for kidnapping –it meant the electric chair. Why would Hauptmann deliberately intend to kill the most famous baby in America, knowing the entire nation’s LE would relentlessly pursue him and never give up? Why would he negotiate in those cemeteries, not really knowing if the corpse had been found yet? Did he want a radio and binoculars so badly that he was willing to risk frying in the chair for them? And what about the cemetery lookouts, seen not only by Condon, but by Reich and Lindbergh? And why was there more than one set of footprints leaving Highfields, one of which belonged to a small-footed man? And how did BRH even know Charlie would be there that Tuesday? For me, when they’re added up, there are just too many factors going against “BRH as sole perp” to be credible.
But Rab, I do find the info you posted on Hans Mueller intriguing. If he was really living within eyeshot of Condon’s house at the very time of the ransom payment, the odds against that being happenstance are too great to ignore. I find it especially interesting that he was helping run a boat, because boats kept coming into play—Boad Nelly, the boat John Hughes Curtis claimed the baby was on, CJ allegedly telling Condon he was a sailor—and I have seen reports on this board that Condon, in one of his many tall tales, once claimed to have actually seen Charlie on a boat. Assuming that the kidnapping was carried out by a gang, do you think the original INTENT, at least, was to keep Charlie on a boat—perhaps the one Hans Mueller helped take care of? I suppose a boat, as the prison of a kidnapping victim, would hold certain advantages over a house—especially in its capacity to keep the victim out of normal police range.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 30, 2013 8:50:56 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 30, 2013 8:50:56 GMT -5
For Amy: - All the withdrawals are actual cash or cheques. They are not trading losses. I also have all of Hauptmann's trading statements but they are largely (in my view) irrelevant. It's the money used to buy the stocks that's important. - I chose to credit Hauptmann with the trunk money in order to demonstrate that it doesn't cover everything. For some people this magic money explains every purchase and living expense, which it clearly doesn't. I don't personally believe it existed, the Hauptmanns had $200 in the bank in March 1932. So basically you can add $3,800 to the total surplus expenditure over income, bringing the total from March 1932 to Hauptmann's arrest to just over $10,000. Just to put it in context, comparing $10,000 in 1933 to its purchasing power today is over $178,000. See: www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmFor BR: - I would say again that there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence linking Fisch to gold certificates. You are correct in that the bulk of Hauptmann's investments were in mid 1933. There are two possible (and not necessarily mutually exclusive) explanations for that: he was flush with clean money following the Faulkner and other exchanges and he was being egged on by someone (perhaps Fisch). - There is an accounting in Hauptmann's notebooks of his partnership with Fisch. It's a concoction, written after the fact, and used as a basis to try to squeeze money from the Fisch family following Isidor's death. Hauptmann's claim was that Fisch owned him $7,500. Some $5,500 was supposedly from investments and another $2,000 which he claimed to have given Fisch. We know that the $2,000 was actually repayment of $2,000 which Fisch had given Hauptmann (the only known money which ever passed between them). So the question arises: why did Hauptmann claim he was owed money by Fisch (even before his arrest)? My view has always been that a partnership of sorts did exist but it was essentially a con on both sides. Hauptmann the supposed Wall Street shark and Fisch the pretend fur trader. They were both out to take advantage of the other but Fisch was just better at it. My view is that Hauptmann was investing on Fisch's behalf (or urging) but crucially was using his own money. He did so because he believed the investments were secured by matching investments Fisch was making in furs. But Fisch, of course, was doing no such thing, he was creating false invoices and the like. There was no money passing between them, it was a confidence game. So I believe Hauptmann spent his own (ransom) money on investments and then when he discovered after Fisch's death that the supposed securities in furs were either non-existent or worthless, he tallied what he thought he was owed as a result of his own gullibility. - In terms of whether the intention was always to kill the child, my view is that, on balance, it was, though whether the plan changed after the "world affair" of the publicity is hard to say. Perhaps there was some naive belief that Lindbergh wouldn't call the police. I believe the child was shot. I also don't believe that the child's body was at Mt Rose until after the ransom was paid. There is no evidence that the body was there the entire time, in fact the available evidence points to the contrary view. So I don't see the issue in negotiating if that was the case. - I think the other (and often overlooked) aspect is the increase of the ransom from $50,000 to $70,000. Why do that? Well, one view is that an accomplice was now necessary. The other is that the plan had to change and that the enterprise was one which now carried a much greater risk. Was that risk the publicity and the manhunt? Was it that the child was dead? What changed? - There are many maritime references. Condon himself took a boat trip in Long Island Sound during the negotiations. I think it's important to look at the Nelly note as a continuum. It wasn't the first reference to a boat, CJ apparently having told Condon on March 12 that the child was on a boat. In one of the later ransom notes, it's said that the child is being held 150 miles away (from New York, presumably). Of the area described in the Nelly note, Horseneck Beach (the closest accessible point) is about 195 miles from the Bronx by road. In a straight line it's about 165 miles. However, in nautical miles it's about 150. Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 30, 2013 19:11:46 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2013 19:11:46 GMT -5
It's important to note that both Wilson and Schwarzkopf believed it was quite possible that Fisch paid Steinweg with Ransom Money. I say its important because I think to myself if these two men accepted this possibility - then who am I to deny it? Additionally, both Ellis Parker and Steinweg believed he actually did. Of course they could be wrong. But considering each alone would be worthy of attention its hard for me to ignore all four and why they believed/considered what they did.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 31, 2013 4:42:59 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 31, 2013 4:42:59 GMT -5
I think on Steinweg and ransom money we have to apply the same level of proof as we would apply to Hautpmann and the search for ransom money generally. Michael as much as anyone will know the lengths the authorities went to in order to investigate ransom bill passings. The investigations are legion. Every single bill was traced to the furthest extent possible. But apparently we are asked to believe that the many notes supposedly paid to Steinweg went undetected. Not just in terms of being traced to him but even being found at all at that point. It doesn't stand up to any scrutiny and it's disingenuous to continue to suggest that Fisch gave Steinweg ransom money when it doesn't pass this basic test.
Could Fisch have given Steinweg non-ransom gold certificates? Possibly, such notes wouldn't have been traced. But let's drop the pretence on ransom money, there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 31, 2013 7:59:39 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 31, 2013 7:59:39 GMT -5
Hi, Rab. I agree with you that the corpse was not originally placed where found. I believe Michael also takes this view. But I can’t see BRH (or anyone else) driving back from the Bronx with a decaying corpse in their trunk. So my guess is that it was originally buried around Hopewell. We have had discussions on this board (including some recent ones) about Charles Schippell, who lived so near where the body was found, and the fact that Cerardi and Maran—who lived close to the Lindbergh residences in both Englewood and Maine—had rented Schippell’s place in the summer of ’31. Both Schippell and Cerardi also had ties to the Bronx. But if the body was deliberately reburied so that it could be found, after the ransom was paid, it sounds like someone was trying to hurt the Lindberghs—a motive for the kidnapping I happen to favor. In any event, it seems like having a “local asset” in Hopewell would have been invaluable for the perps, both as watchful eyes on Highfields and perhaps to have a grave ready and waiting for the original burial.
On the other hand, I have also wondered if someone was trying to set Schippell up to take the fall for this crime (the thread “Question for Michael on Schippell”). Might Schippell have even discovered the body buried on his property, and then, in order remove incrimination from himself, dragged it a few hundred feet at night to the spot where it was eventually found?
Rab, you say you think the baby was shot. Do you believe it was done with the little pistol found in Hauptmann’s garage? And do you think the purpose of shooting the baby was a vengeful act of murder, or simply a quick means of silencing the child? As I think of it, if the perps(s) intended to shoot the child, they would certainly want the smallest gun possible. A .38 would have scattered pieces of his skull—which is evidence—everywhere. It also would have made a louder sound. Do we happen to know how the caliber of the Lilliput compares to the diameter of the hole in Charlie’s skull that Walsh thought had been left by his stick?
On the other hand, if Hauptmann used that gun on the child, you’d think he would have heaved the gun into a lake or river the first chance he got.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 31, 2013 11:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2013 11:30:02 GMT -5
I know you feel strongly about this and have the research to support it but there's circumstances that create an opening here - for me at least. I don't want to open up a can of worms but sometimes doing something stupid can be irresistible.
So - if I were to score it, the biggest consideration for me is Frank Wilson having a conference with Schwarzkopf, Keaton, etc. and their belief it was possible for Gartner to have handled some of the Lindbergh Ransom Money. It doesn't end there. Wilson then gets Agent Frank involved by having him make an "intensive examination" into this possibility.
Two "heavy hitters" when it came to everything about Ransom Money.
So I think this is the foundation for my acceptance of the possibility myself. It would be impossible to draw a conclusion because, from all of the material I've been able to collect - Wilson and Frank never did. This too adds to that possibility because no one wanted Fisch to have had Ransom Money in his possession because it would have done harm to the State's "Lone-Wolf" Theory.
I do agree with you that Gold Notes were much more easily found. It's undeniable. But I believe Gartner and Steinweg when they claimed Gartner got his Gold Notes from Steinweg. Gold Notes don't necessarily mean Ransom Money though. But it's suspicious that Steinweg remembered they came from Fisch - and in November 1933 - over 6 months after these notes were called in. Gartner would claim he took $100 in Gold Notes to the Federal Reserve on Nassau Street and got other money for it sometime in March 1934.
Certainly, if these bills were not found this is something for the scale on the other side of it. But as always, I ask myself about other things to see if they relate to the situation I am looking at.
Take the Gold Notes in total that were placed in that Ransom Box: $20,000 ($20), and $14,980 ($10).
From this group, approx. $9,980 ($20), and $9080 ($10) were discovered.
And so, like the NJSP asked Hauptmann.....where's the rest? If we assume all of the $5 had been passed first, which was the opinion of most, what wasn't found on him was passed too.
Wouldn't this imply it evaded detection somehow? If so, by this same argument, we cannot rule out that Gartner's money fell into this category as well.
The only way I see around this position is if that other amount was with a Confederate who hadn't spent their share.
If I am wrong about any of this please correct me.
Absolutely, but if he did I don't think we'd ever know in the first place. I am working on something concerning Fisch and Ransom $5s. It all started with a scrawled comment on a note attached to a page of the Trial Transcripts. Probably just another black hole for me to get lost in.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 31, 2013 14:09:37 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 31, 2013 14:09:37 GMT -5
If Gartner corroborated Steinweg, that is strongly in Steinweg’s favor. From what we know, weren’t these reputable people, and would they have any motive for inventing such a story? If Fisch wanted to unload ransom gold certificates, it seems logical that he would have done so shortly before leaving the country. Looking at the FBI files, ransom notes were not detected after June 1933, but suddenly started cropping up again in November 1933, the month preceding Fisch's sailing for Germany, and the same month Steinweg said he got the gold certs from Fisch. Regarding November 1933, see also the thread I started in the ransom section called "Penn Station Incident."
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 31, 2013 19:05:46 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2013 19:05:46 GMT -5
Note the correction I made above..... The source for the "final" computation of ransom gold certs was taken from Agent Seery's Report of 10-18-34 so that's why I put in the "approx." All they said was they were gold notes - so of course that's all they might have been. I believe it helps that they backed each other up. Still though, people did lie. But fortunately, when they said Gartner bought $150 worth the investigation into the story produced this check to prove it: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 1, 2013 7:33:46 GMT -5
On Steinweg: - Michael, you're correct, of course, that we can't account for every gold certificate. I don't personally believe that there is a stash somewhere still because Hauptmann accounts for most of it (in terms of clean money transactions). I believe Hauptmann had two major opportunities to dispose of gold certificates: one was the period around May 1 1933 when the volume of transactions going through the banks almost certainly means that there were exchanges which went unnoticed; the second I'm not prepared to go into at the moment. But November 1933 was a very different time. We all know the rarity of gold certificates at that time, they didn't circulate and so it's inconceivable to me that Fisch could have made such a large purchase (over $1,000) with ransom money and it would go unnoticed. We have to accept that there is simply no proof of this transaction being ransom money. - The cheque, again, doesn't prove anything in relation to this being ransom money. Gartner claimed that when he deposited the "gold certificates" to his bank account he was taken in by the authorities and accused of being J.J. Faulkner and had to write the name over and over again to prove his innocence. Yet where is the record of any such incident? The story also fails the logic test: why buy $150 of gold certificates by cheque just to deposit them back into your bank account? Again, there is no link from this tale to ransom money. On Mt Rose: - I agree a local hiding place or accomplice would have been helpful but not by any means essential. If we all agree that the body was transported then someone at some point over some distance took that risk. I suspect the body was in a hiding place during the negotiations but perhaps some place that if later found might provide a link to the kidnapper. So disposing of the body was always necessary. It might also have been - in some twisted way - the completion of the agreement to return to the child following the ransom payment. A final consideration might be that as long as the child was missing the manhunt would remain at fever pitch so the finding of the body may have been seen as a path to lessening the "heat". Which it did, after the initial furore over the child's death. - Could Schippell have found the body and moved it off his property? Possibly. Though why not move everything? Aside from the sleeping suit, the second thumbguard, the diapers, the rubber pants and the safety pins were all missing. Also, if he moved it, why not bury it rather than leaving it essentially in the open? - Unfortunately the autopsy doesn't give an accurate measurement of the hole in the skull other than saying it could have been made by a small calibre bullet (which, of course, is what the .25 Lilliput used). I think it's a reasonable point why if Hauptmann had used that pistol to kill the child he didn't rid himself of it. But it's not like he had it in the open. It was heavily concealed in his garage alongside ransom money. He didn't want anyone to find that either, did he? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliput_pistolRab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2013 8:35:27 GMT -5
On Steinweg....
I am not trying to drag this out but I do want to get this right. There are circumstances that seem to line up, however, we've all seen this type of thing before so it doesn't necessarily mean what it implies.
But for me it could so I don't want to overlook it.
I see your argument as being that it would have been easier to slip past the Bank thousands at the time of the recall, but less likely for smaller amounts afterwards - so that whatever Hauptmann had in his garage was all that was left AND all the rest had been exchanged during the recall. Am I right? If I am then I do understand your point but I am not as confident as to completely dismiss this possibility.
It is exactly your reason above which supports Steinweg's claim for immediately noticing them when Fisch paid him.
And so this places both positions into a "Catch-22" of sorts. Who was more likely to miss them, lie, or be wrong? These are the things we need to address when considering this.
According to Steinweg, "many" of the bills Fisch paid with were the gold seal type. That's got to be less then a 1K but I am not sure how many because Steinweg did not say the exact amount. The is importance of this fact would be where would Fisch get Gold Notes?
Well if one thinks Fisch is oblivious then Hauptmann of course. Right? And if he's not then he's in on this thing. Or, he had them all along but they weren't Ransom. What are the odds for each?
So according to Steinweg, he kept $100 of gold notes for himself to give to his wife for her birthday. After some time, eventually, he thought better of it then placed them back into his drawer.
According to both Steinweg and Gartner $100 of these were sold to Gartner so he could make money on them during his trip to Germany. He then came back and bought $150 more via check. If its not Gold Notes then what's he buying on this exact same date?
Gartner supposedly deposited some of this in Winer Bank - Verein in Budapest Hungary. Gartner indicated he had been wrong thinking he would get more and only got the same amount back in return. As a result, according to him, he keep what he had left then exchanged it later as referenced above in NY. So unless we're willing to admit this is all one big hoax it is Gold Notes we are talking about.
Of course you are right. But it does back up the claim that Fisch paid with some Gold Notes that Steinweg sold to Gartner.
Oh this definitely happened and I have various items to back it up.
Early in the investigation the requests for handwriting samples were based on the Ransom Notes. After J. J. Faulkner they asked them to write what was on that deposit slip. It became procedure for anyone thought to have handled ransom money.
The Investigator's Notes indicate they checked Gartner's handwriting but it didn't match. Then they noticed a ledger or something in which the handwriting appeared to be similar. So they then had Steinweg's Clerk, Otto Kuhn, pen out "J. J. Faulkner" too.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 1, 2013 11:57:52 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Apr 1, 2013 11:57:52 GMT -5
Michael, my view is that there there were two opportunities to unload larger caches of the gold notes in the ransom: May 1933 and another time which I'll go into at some other point. November 1933 wasn't such a time and we both know the alertness for ransom money at that point.
Steinweg said that Fisch paid him $1,050 for the balance of his passage and for traveller's cheques. Whether he claimed all or some of it were gold notes I would have to check but it was still a large amount.
I think perhaps you're missing my point with Gartner and in general. That the money paid by Fisch may have contained some gold notes I don't dismiss as a possibility. But it's an irrelevant one. What I am saying is that there is not a shred of evidence of it being ransom gold certificates. That Gartner was investigated when Steinweg came forward is no surprise. My point is his story about being investigated when he deposited the money to his account (i.e. well before Hauptmann's arrest) is untrue. Unless you know otherwise.
Bottom line: nothing ties this to ransom money, no matter how people stretch it.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 1, 2013 19:47:48 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2013 19:47:48 GMT -5
Okay. This is where we are in disagreement. I find that if Fisch possessed Gold Notes to make this transaction then it is relevant to certain important possibilities.
Unless I am forgetting and/or don't know something you do then I don't believe Gartner made this claim. I could be wrong, or its possibly a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.
Without the serials #s though there will never be direct evidence these were Ransom Bills. However, the circumstances are hard to ignore. For me I can't. The odds explaining it away aren't good enough for me to do that. But this is one of those things where it could be for some and not so for others.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2013 9:24:41 GMT -5
I have been reading over Steinweg's statement to Ellis Parker to acquaint myself with the discussion going on. I have read through it several times trying to be clear on what Steinweg says occured. I do have some questions:
1) Ellis Parker's interview with Steinweg is dated October 25, 1935. When did this whole issue of the gold notes that Steinweg claimed he received from Fisch actually become known? When did LE know about this? Are there any statements earlier than the one Ellis procured?
2) Steinweg says in his statement about Fisch , "I was reminded of the incident on the day when Fisch was here. Fisch was here in the morning, first, he came and made a deposit. I don't remember anything but on the 14th of November, in the morning, Fisch was here and brought about $1000.00". Is Steinweg talking about two different times that Fisch was in his place of business?
3) Steinweg brings up Mr. Gartner, a business associate, who apparently takes gold certificates over to Europe and exchanges them for regular dollars because he can get a higher value for them overseas. Steinweg says Gartner is planning a trip to Europe in the Spring and buys some of the gold certificates Steinweg has in his possession. This particular exchange is taking place on November 14, 1933. Steinweg says Gartner would come by regularly to check if he had any gold certificates available, so this event is not an unusual occurence between these two individuals. What I don't understand is what Steinweg meant when he said "and then we were off of the standard, but was not mandatory to deliver gold notes". What does he mean here?? Is he talking about post May 1933 when we were off the gold standard or pre May 1, 1933 before it was mandatory to turn in gold certificates?
4) When you read a little farther down it sounds like Steinweg is saying that Gartner held the gold certificates he was buying from Steinweg until the spring when it became mandatory to deliver the gold notes. Steinweg says that on the very last day Gartner went to the Federal Reserve and delivered them to the bank. How can Gartner be depositing gold certs that he acquired from Steinweg in November 1933 into the bank in May 1933??? If Fisch made two trips to see Steinweg to arrange his upcoming trip to Germany, did he use gold certs both times??
5) Hauptmann makes a withdrawal from his Steiner Rouse (AS) account on November 14, 1933 of $2,057.00 which he gives to Fisch. If this is the money Fisch used to pay the balance due on his travel account and for Uhlig's ticket and travel checks then how could Fisch have been paying with gold certificates on November 14th?
Rab - If you don't mind my asking, what was the criteria you used when evaluating which withdrawals and deposits linked up to each other. Several seem quite clear because they occur on the same exact day and very close in the amount if not the same. It is the ones that occur as withdrawals on one date and deposits on different dates in different amounts, that I am asking about. A couple of examples: September 12, 1932 and September 14, 1932 colored green; December 7, 1932, December 12, 1932 and January 10, 1933 colored Red.
Michael - From what I have come to learn about Fisch, he has a history of being involved with money laundering. A couple of the incidents that talk about Fisch selling hot money after the ransom was paid mention a man being with Fisch who is called Fritz. What can you tell me about this man?
|
|