|
Letters
Apr 3, 2013 20:39:12 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2013 20:39:12 GMT -5
I am behind on the threads so hopefully everyone will bear with me if you've asked something and I haven't gotten back to you yet.
My question to you Amy is where you heard of him?
I believe you are referring to the man Hauptmann said was with Fisch when he first met him at Hunter's Island in the "beginning of March." He had blond hair with "sideboards", 2 years younger then Hauptmann, smaller and stout build, had a little mark from a vaccination on his chin, and spoke German with an Austrian accent. He claimed to have seen him again with Fisch 3 weeks later.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 3, 2013 21:46:14 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 3, 2013 21:46:14 GMT -5
Amy, regarding “Fritz,” you may have already seen this, but Arthur H. Trost gave a deposition that he had often seen, and spoken to, Fisch in a billiard parlor at 86th Street and 3rd avenue. According to Trost, Fisch stopped showing at the parlor in February 1932, but reappeared the following summer.
Scaduto (pp. 460-61) quoted this part of the deposition:
Amy, three notes:
(1) If Fritz was recruiting people to buy money from Fisch, it seems like they were partnered up.
(2) Although “Fritz” may have been the man’s real name, it is sometimes used as a nickname for a German person. During World War II, the Germans called the Russians “Ivans” and the Russians called the Germans “Fritzes.”
(3) This is a REAL long shot, but Michael mentioned that Fritz was “stout.” This caught my attention because the description of the driver of the touring car seen near the Lindbergh residence on the evening of the kidnapping (which I posted yesterday in the “Lilliput” thread) was also specifically described as “stout.” Perhaps a meaningless coincidence, but I don’t see the word get used that often.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 3, 2013 22:20:10 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 3, 2013 22:20:10 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 4, 2013 16:01:16 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 16:01:16 GMT -5
Michael,
I read about Fritz first in Gardner's book. I always check that first. I also read about him in Kennedy's book. I see that BR says Scaduto's book mentions Fritz also. I will have to check that out too. Your physical description of Fritz has more detail but I think we are talking about the same person. Was Fritz ever identified beyond the two events mentioned in the books? Fisch had contact with so many different people and it amazes me how he was able to keep most people he was involved with segregated from each other.
If Fisch had ransom money from early after the St Raymond payoff occured, I would think that this would put him in the mix as an accomplice in the extortion. I wonder if the prosecution would have ever gone after Fisch as Hauptmann's accomplice had Fisch not died while in Germany. Wilentz just didn't seem interested in connecting anyone else to the kidnapping.
I also read, not sure if it was in a book, the Hauptmann was seen at Steiner Rouse with a man fitting Fritz's description. Would you know anything about this?
I also read the most incredible thing in Gardner's book. On page 252 he mentions that Fisch, Hauptmann and Carl Henkel know a man they call "John" the bootlegger. Gardner says that Henkel and this John would go hunting in New Jersey! This also reminded me of the inscription of the photo I posted earlier of the 1931 birthday party that was a celebration for "John". Makes me wonder if all of this could be linked together somehow. Do you know anything you can share about this bootlegger?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 4, 2013 16:12:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 16:12:27 GMT -5
BR - Thanks for telling me about the info in Scaduto's book about Fritz. I will definitely read it. I wonder, too, if Fritz was really his name.
I am going to go back and review what you wrote in the Liliput thread about the driver of that car. I think that car may be important in this kidnapping for several reasons.
Thanks for posting the picture of the boarding house Fisch resided at in Connecticut. Perhaps that companion could be Fritz since Fisch was trying to sell gold notes and he had been assisting him in New York. I wonder if there is any other information on this like an official report that might offer more details about Fisch and this companion.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 4, 2013 22:45:53 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 4, 2013 22:45:53 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Thanks for calling attention to Fritz. I see that Gardner (p. 258) cites another case of “Fritz” selling hot money with an “Izzy” on 86th Street--same location mentioned by Trost. I assume that “Izzy” is a nickname for “Isidor.” Gardner’s footnotes allude to other depositions regarding Fisch selling hot money that Gardner does not put into his main text. Incidentally, for what it’s worth, Steiner, Rouse—Hauptmann’s investment firm--was also on East 86th Street. For me, based on all the witnesses, it seems almost undeniable that Fisch was selling hot money in 1932. And we know he definitely had a partnership with Hauptmann. Now if Hauptmann was laundering money, and his partner Fisch was laundering money at the same time, it would seem unlikely in the extreme that it was different money--that by some coincidence they were each laundering separate “hot money.” For me, Fisch is in this thing. Norwalk, where the boarding house was, is very close to Stamford, where the sleeping suit was mailed from. Here’s a short newspaper clip which claims police said Fisch and a friend tried to rent a fur shop in Norwalk using ransom notes: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19360403&id=vHYbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KUwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5712,3873867 I wonder exactly when Fisch and his “companion” were living at the boarding house in Norwalk. If Fritz was helping Fisch launder Lindbergh ransom money, it would seem pretty likely that Fritz KNEW it was kidnap money. He certainly knew the money was hot, and he must have talked about it with Fisch. Fritz could even have been one of the kidnappers, yet he has pretty much stayed off the LKC radar screen! It would be interesting to see Fritz’s handwriting and compare it to the JJ Faulkner deposit slip. Michael, I know you've been off the board, and I know this is a long shot, but is there any document in the archives that clues us as to Fritz’s last name?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 4, 2013 23:30:27 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 4, 2013 23:30:27 GMT -5
Hm. Based on a deposition, Gardner (p. 258) says “Izzy and Fritz” gave a man a $5 bill and encouraged him to use it to buy cigars; this, they said, would prove that their hot money was good. Gardner says the man bought cigars with it, but still wouldn’t buy any of the “hot money.”
If “Izzy and Fritz” were assuring their prospect it was good money, then it was presumably WAS good money (not counterfeit). Lindbergh ransom money would be “hot” but also “good.”
Adding interest to this story is that the FBI Files indicate that three of the ransom bills were traced to cigar stores.
You’ll recall Rab mentioned that Hans Mueller was with Hauptmann on one of the days he laundered money. So—just thinking out loud here--Might we have two teams of men laundering money: Richard with Hans, Isidor with Fritz?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 9:36:05 GMT -5
BR, Great article on Fisch in Conneticut!! I think I will look into when Fisch was boarding there. That will be important to know. I figure the same way you do that Fritz must have known that it was ransom money.
I have seen Fisch called Izzy. Makes me think that maybe Fritz was a nickname also. Do you know anything about Fred Aldinger? Him and BRH go back to Hauptmann's arrival in America. Maybe Fred could be nicknamed Fritz?
Your idea of two teams laundering the money is one I have not considered. $50,000 is alot of money. Two teams could have done the job quicker. The cigar store purchases tend to validate the Fisch and Fritz report that they were definitely selling Lindbergh money. The $10.00 notes were traced back to cigar stores like you said.
Let me know if you see anything of merit in the Aldinger angle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2013 8:24:45 GMT -5
Just getting my Internet Service back on line....
Will try to catch up over the weekend.
I wouldn't call it "testimony" BR. Sue posted something on this subject about 5 years ago or so. That probably exceeds the search here but you can try a Google Site search and that might lead you to her post.
To answer your question I know that Gov. Hoffman sent Investigators to look at this. I'll have to check but I recall it could neither be proven or disproven.
Okay. I always ask because it helps me when looking at the subject. There were a couple of Defense Witnesses that never testified. I believe Trost was found by one of Fawcett's PIs. I always wondered whether Hauptmann was telling the truth or if he mentioned this after becoming aware of these people saying this. He said this guy (Fritz) was introduced to him as "Mr. So & So".... so he's not remembering his name either way.
I'll look more into this and go through my PMs as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 6, 2013 9:57:21 GMT -5
Michael, great to have you back on the board. It’s not the same without you. Looking forward to your posts. Amy, I’m sure Michael will have things to say about Aldinger. I see Hoffman’s investigators were apparently looking into him. Check this detective's report posted on the “hoax” forum that claims Aldinger was rolling in money after the kidnapping, plus was linked to Hans Mueller. disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=43535;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20ForumOn another thread on our own board, Michael did say he didn’t think Aldinger was the same man as Fritz. As I understand it, the Aldingers had a relationship with Hauptmann and Anna. “Fritz,” on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be in the Hauptmanns’ circle, he seems like a special buddy of Fisch. But I don’t think it’s necessarily ruled out. In any event, Aldinger seems worthy of attention in the LKC. I wonder if Michael or Rab has a picture of him. Trost said Fritz worked as a painter, so it would be helpful to know Aldinger’s trade. Getting back to “Izzy and Fritz.” Gardner (p. 370) says that Oscar Bruckman (driver for the Knickerbocker Pie Co.) said in a deposition that Fisch “had obtained some hot money that he needed to get rid of outside of New York.” Yet we see that Izzy and Fritz were selling hot money IN New York. My guess is that things got too hot for them in New York (for example, Trost had recognized Fisch when brought to him by Fritz.) Perhaps this is why they decided to ply their wares up in Norwalk, where probably no one knew them. I don’t see how it is possible to deny that Fisch was selling hot money given all the reports to that effect. The FBI files show no bills were detected after June 1933, but they suddenly started turning up in November 1933. This sounds like Fisch getting ready for his December return to Germany. See the thread “Penn Station Incident” in the “Ransom” section of the board—I strongly suspect this was Fisch. Now, if Fisch was selling hot money, but had not laundered all of it by the time of his voyage to Germany, then he would have left it behind, yes? Because you can’t go into a store in Germany and just pass an American bill. He would have had to exchange a large amount at a currency exchange bank, which presumably would have been very risky. And if Fisch left hot money behind, wouldn’t his partner and friend Hauptmann be a logical choice to give it to? Then we have this passage in Gardner (p. 265): Why DID Hauptmann always insist he got the money from Fisch? Surely he didn’t pick the name randomly. In sum, I think there is some credence to Hauptmann’s explanation for where he got the money. Yet it is hard to believe him entirely, given Rab’s accounting of his finances, and other incriminating facts, especially Rail 16 as well as the hidden Lillput, which I now believe was tied to the crime itself.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 6, 2013 16:31:40 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2013 16:31:40 GMT -5
The first NJSP & NYPD investigation into Fisch's payments were on Sept. 28th. They interviewed the Desk Man Otto Kuhn. They asked him if Fisch had paid with "Gold backs" among the amount he paid. I couldn't find an interview with Steinweg among the Reports, but its a logical conclusion that he prompted that question of Kuhn.
I located a Treasury Dept. Letter from Wilson to Keaton that I referenced above dated Oct. 15th where he says "they" had discussed in a conference on Oct. 5th the possibility of Gartner having handled some of the Ransom.
There's obviously stuff missing, or in the alternative, only verbal reports had been made for the things we'd like to see.
Fisch was there on August 18th, the afternoon of November 13th, and the morning of November 14th.
I am not exactly certain. I know there was a provision that allowed one to have $100. Gartner says in his statement that he turned in what bills he had left on the "last day" in March of 1934. There must have been some other Bank action concerning Gold Notes these men are referencing.
It's my opinion that Steinweg remembers the notes on the 14th. It's possible I am wrong, or that Fisch did spent some on the previous visit(s) and Steinweg didn't notice.
The money Hauptmann turned over to Fisch came in the afternoon after banking hours made by a special effort through someone at Steiner Rouse & Co., therefore the money Fisch used earlier in the morning could not have been that money.
In searching for additional information on Steinweg, there is a version in Whipples Book (p 190). Here is says Steinweg went to the Bank and they had remembered the money and that it was Ransom. This is the only account anywhere that I have ever been able to find which makes this direct claim.
Thought I would compliment this Subject by posting a Hoffman Investigation document. Meade was a PI out of Red Bank New Jersey who had been employed by the Hunterdon County Prosecutors Office during the Curtis Trial. Mustoe was the Chief of Detectives for Monmouth County. (Since Hoffman's efforts and those who assisted were maligned by both of Fisher's books I find it important to point these facts out.):
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 7, 2013 13:45:11 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 7, 2013 13:45:11 GMT -5
Michael, both Amy and I are interested in the Norwalk episode. Do we have a copy of the statement Mrs. Hermann made to Hoffman’s investigators? It would be helpful to know WHEN in 1932 Fisch and his friend were staying at her boarding house. I read elsewhere that she said that she was threatened by the NJSP.
It is interesting that she says a man who looked like Condon visited Fisch and his friend. This makes the timing even more crucial. I agree with you that Condon was in this thing. He set the Guinness World Record for lying, and that could only be to hide things. And the answer to his offer in the Bronx Home News came far too fast. However, I don’t believe he knew the child was dead when he first ensnared himself. If Condon was in this thing, he must have had a meeting with the kidnappers/extortionists. But where? Condon was well-known in the Bronx. It is logical that they would have picked a remote place where no one knew them. Could this have been Norwalk?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 7, 2013 20:02:49 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2013 20:02:49 GMT -5
I've been looking for Sue's original post on this subject but I believe it dates back to my old Board. Here is something I posted after Rick followed up on Sue's information: It's definitely a 'connection.' However, while some of what Mrs. Hermann said was verifiable - other portions could not be verified. Governor Hoffman sent investigators there who did a fair job in following this up. I am left hanging on a few points and wonder if there aren't some missing reports to be discovered "somewhere." Some of Hoffman's team revealed that according to Hermann the NJSP had come to interview her during Hauptmann's trial having heard somehow of her account of ransom money being sold. Here is an excerpt: During the Hauptmann trial two New Jersey Police Officers came to see me. I don't know who told them I knew anything about the case. I told them the same story I have told you and when I finished they showed me some pictures and said THIS IS THE MAN WHO OFFERED TO SELL YOU THE MONEY. I said, "those picture are not of Isadore Fisch, I think those pictures are Hauptmann, but he never spoke to me about money. They insisted that I must be mistaken that if anybody offered me money it was Hauptmann and not Fisch. When I would not identify the pictures they got very rough and said, "you are crazy, and the best thing you can do is to keep your mouth shut. If you keep quiet they cann't[sic] take you out of the State of Connecticut and make you talk, and if you talk the same thing might happen to you that happened to Mrs. Busch, who was a friend of Dr. Condon." Okay, to follow up on my earlier point about Trost. It was PI Henry Kress who found him. Kress worked for Fawcett, then did something remarkable.... He turned over information to Reilly even after Fawcett had been dismissed and was himself withholding information from the new Defense Team. Unbelievable find BR. I never read that post by Robert! He's a real....what's the word?......pistol! That fits. He doesn't like being disagreed with as you can see. Still though, I don't regret sending him that report. It was about his Family so a copy belonged to him in my opinion. I think one could doubt the sincerity of these people coming forward or claim it wasn't Ransom Money. Regardless, I think its hard to ignore the possibility that he did. No last name was ever discovered that I've been able to find from the Reports. That is (and I've considered this often) unless "Fritz" was his last name. Back to Steinweg... I wanted to correct something I said earlier. The Police did stop by and talk to him on Nov. 13, 1934. It's strange because they went there on Sept. 28th to speak with Kuhn about "Gold Backs" but they aren't asking Steinweg anything about them on this occasion. I feel even more strongly now there's a "missing" report concerning Stenweig dated Sept. 28th or earlier. See NYPD Report below. I cannot confirm the "bootlegger" part of Schaffer's claim:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 10:02:09 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 10:02:09 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for answering my questions about Steinweg. I think Steinweg accepted gold notes whenever people presented them. If he had a source, like Gartner, who was willing to take them off his hands, the gold notes presented no problem for him. Steinweg actually made a great source for laundering money. I am sure he did not realize that Fisch was giving him ransom money at that time, however. This makes me wonder how much ransom money might has ended up overseas since gold notes held more value across the ocean. What I don't understand about this Steinweg/Gartner situation is how come the ransom gold certificates deposited by Gartner weren't identified at the time he deposited them. Steinweg names the Bank where they were deposited even. Then Gartner gets an official visit from LE and is made to write whole pages of JJ Faulkner. If I am clear on the dates, all of this investigating is taking place after Hauptmann's arrest. How did LE find out about Steinweg? Did this info come from Hauptmann or did Steinweg come forward on his own? I am really intrigued by this whole story about Mrs. Hermann. The fact that this became known while Hauptmann was on trial and that she was threatened in order to keep this all quiet seems to fit perfectly with what was happening to people who wanted to offer any validity to who and what Fisch really was about. I am glad she stood her ground in IDing Fisch! So, Michael, you know I am going to ask you who is Mrs. Busch and what happened to her? Kress did a very admirable thing in turning the information about Trost over to Reilly. This means Reilly knew Fisch was selling hot money after the kidnapping. This would have helped Hauptmann's position. What did Reilly do with this material? Did he share it with the rest of the defense team? Thanks for posting the report on John Chizacky. Seems he was an upstanding individual. Doesn't sound like the type to be into bootlegging activities. Will put this aside for now. I was wondering, did Hans Muller have a brother named Emil?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 12:35:18 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 12:35:18 GMT -5
I believe Mrs. Hermann for four reasons: (1) She said Fisch and a friend offered hot money at a discount (sixty cents on the dollar). This tallies with what Trost and others said in depositions. We can find the results of these depositions today in books like Gardner’s, but where would Mrs. Hermann have gotten that idea in 1936 if her report was bogus? I don’t believe those other depositions made it into the newspapers. (2) She said she was threatened to keep her from testifying. Threats were also made to other witnesses useful to the defense, such as Louis Kiss and Anna Bonesteel. fultonhistory.com/newspaper%2010/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman%201935%20Grayscale/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman%201935%20Grayscale%20-%200235.pdf(3) Mrs. Hermann mentions Mrs. Busch. But Busch, I believe, did not testify in Flemington. She was very minor character in the whole LKC affair. Where would Mrs. Hermann have gotten that name if she was making this all up? Why wouldn’t she have named someone more prominent in the case? (4) According to the Norwalk police, Fisch and a partner indeed tried to pass ransom notes in Norwalk. As cited before, news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19360403&id=vHYbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KUwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5712,3873867 So Mrs. Hermann has the local police giving a corroborating story. In sum,I believe Mrs. Hermann was telling the truth. I believe Fisch was up to his neck in this thing, and unfortunately the prosecution, rather than seeking the truth, tried a put a lid on anything that pointed beyond Hauptmann. I’d like to see the full story Mrs. Hermann gave the South Norwalk Sentinel, which is on microfilm at the Norwalk Museum. Did she give more exact dates, and did the man who stayed with Fisch at her boarding house ever give a name? No success so far in contacting the Museum, which looks like it is usually closed.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 13:59:15 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 13:59:15 GMT -5
Aimee has pointed out to me that there are a large number of “Connecticut connections” in this case. And I have to agree—there are more than we might notice at first glance. There’s this Norwalk business. Then there’s Rab’s discovery that the sleeping suit was mailed from Stamford. And the very first gold cert was passed in Greenwich—though the passer snatched the bill back and ran, preventing the bill’s verification.
These towns cluster together. And didn’t Red Johnsen drive right through the area on the night of the kidnapping? Isn’t it weird that Condon said CJ was pleading that Red Johnsen was innocent? Don’t you think CJ should have been GLAD to see someone else take the heat for the crime?
I don’t want to beat Alan’s Warburg thesis into the ground, but Red was out riding on the night of the kidnapping with Margeurite Junge, whose sister was a servant in the household of Warburg, who lived in Greenwich and left the country for Europe on April 1, 1932—the night before the ransom payment.
What’s up with Connecticut? Was the baby initially held on an estate in Connecticut, while the ransom negotiations were conducted in the Bronx?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 19:30:45 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 19:30:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 20:03:43 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 20:03:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 20:08:09 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2013 20:08:09 GMT -5
It's a problem to consider. I've seen it mentioned that Bank Tellers may have started to "slack" in looking or even "mislaid" their Key Cards and/or Serial Booklets. But that's a double edged sword - if one uses that explanation there then it must be used elsewhere. For example, why certain bills may not have been traced to Steiner, etc. etc.
A perfect place to launder would be where it would wind up in Europe. But we do know this method could not have always been employed. But it may explain where the "rest" of the money went - if not held, hidden, or burned by Confederates not wanting to get caught.
Your dates are correct, and I believe it could have been through Hauptmann, or possibly Uhlig which led them there initially.
It seems to be a common theme that if something didn't "fit" they would warn those telling the story to keep quiet about it. BR's examples are good and don't forget Samuelsohn. He was told to keep his mouth shut about his claim concerning the ladder.
Do you remember the "Woman in Green," Hermina Koren? Mrs. Busch was the other woman who had gone to see Condon.
Hard to say. He's connected to a Tavern and a Pilot. Quite possible he was a bootlegger. I just don't have any proof.
No, they weren't related.
Devil's Advocate....
1. It does tally. But might this have been read in the papers?
2. You're right here too. But an argument could be made she was warned for her own good because she was wrong or crazy.
3. Local Police got this from Hoffman's men. Hoffman's men got this from Hermann.
I am also pretty sure one of Condon's stories included CJ claiming to be from Boston.
Kress (along with Martin) found him too.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 20:16:54 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2013 20:16:54 GMT -5
It depends what you mean by minor. She claimed to have been in touch with the Kidnappers. They went to see Condon, and he gave them two letters he said were in the Kidnapper's handwriting. This was the point of Reilly bringing them up in Court. He asked Condon whether or not he told them they were in the Kidnapper's Hand. Condon testified, under oath, that he did not.
Then began the campaign to paint these women as "cranks" in the media. (This is what I believe Hermann was referring to). Condon's Champion concerning this matter was none other then Ralph Hacker who announced, in essence, it was a clever trick employed by Condon to see if they were legit. Condon supposedly telling Hacker to give them bogus letters to see if they could tell they had not been written by the Kidnappers. If they did not he would know they weren't in touch with the right party. Wilentz liked this so much he told the Press he would call Hacker to the stand to counter any Defense testimony from these woman.
However, the problem that I see, and apparently Wilentz overlooked, is that it contradicts Condon's testimony that he did not represent these letters as being written by the Kidnappers. Hacker's whole tale relies on exactly Condon having done this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 20:43:12 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 20:43:12 GMT -5
This is an excellent article BR. This is right after the ransom was paid too. I think all of this is important. This is now three people we know about being offered hot money by Fisch. The unfortunate thing about this is that because none of these people bought any that could be traced back as Lindbergh ransom money there is no way to prove that it was actually ransom money he was offering. I really think it was but there is no way to prove it.
Connecticut does come up alot in this kidnapping. Even the Lindberghs ended up living in Darien Connecticut! It is weird that CJ is claiming that Red and Betty are innocent. Why should he even care about that? Maybe Condon asked CJ if Red was involved. And just maybe they never even discussed it. When it comes to Condon, figuring out what is true from what is embelishment or lies can be difficult.
I think Red Johnson is worth looking at more closely, myself. I think there are timeline issues with him, especially about when exactly he actually left to go to his brother's house in Connecticut and when he arrived at his brother's house. Don't want to get off the thread topic with this discussion.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 20:46:24 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 20:46:24 GMT -5
OK, so that is what “happened” to Mrs. Busch. I think Amy and I were wondering if someone pushed her off the Brooklyn Bridge.
If Mrs. Busch told Condon that she was in touch with the kidnappers, I suppose she probably was a crank. However, it’s hard to imagine anyone out-“cranking” Jafsie at his own game! He changed his stories so many times that almost nothing can be taken at face value.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 8, 2013 21:50:22 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 8, 2013 21:50:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2013 5:19:30 GMT -5
I think that's a natural conclusion to jump to. That's something I always try to make people aware of - that there are other possible explanations the those we impulsively and immediately jump to. Doesn't mean they can't be right and/or shouldn't be included within the realm of those which could be, just that we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking its the only possibility.
I don't want you to think I am disagreeing with you outright BR. I am just trying to level the playing field a little by playing Devil's Advocate. Fisch did make that sale, and it was with the help of Uhlig who worked for Fishbein & Klar at the time.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 9, 2013 7:28:02 GMT -5
I understand. And just to play Devil’s Advocate with my own suspicions about “Izzy and Fritz,” I suppose I could point out (before Rab does) that (1) the FBI files don’t show ransom notes in 1932 being traced either to Norwalk, or directly to the East 86th and 3rd Avenue area where Izzy and Fritz were operating for a short stretch; (2) it would seen careless for Izzy and Fritz to try and unload a huge amount of kidnap ransom notes, all at once, to a landlady or to a fellow painter whom Fritz knew—even if they used assumed names, pictures by police portrait artists could quickly hit the newspapers; (3) a con named Stephen Spitz claimed he bought Lindbergh ransom notes at 40 cents on the dollar, and used it as “get out of a jail free” card; but as far as I can tell, his story was a phony—which undercores that tales of "hot money” were not necessarily reliable.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 9, 2013 12:47:04 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Apr 9, 2013 12:47:04 GMT -5
Some general responses: - I think when one looks at the stories of Trost and others it's very easy to imbue them with a sense of authenticity. But many people came forward, many people had stories, most of them were fantasy. I can't disprove every one of them but their very vagueness makes them difficult to refute. I think you also have to look at the commonality of them being private investigator discoveries. Just as the police had an agenda, so did the private investigators. What may appear to be similarities in incidents can easily be similarities in who is relating them and wants them to appear convincing. Just as the police and the press were in cahoots, so were the PIs and the press. It's all very difficult to say. - On Steinweg, I say again that there is no evidence. He presents a very confusing story and seems to me to be wrong on all the major points. Review again what he says to Ellis Parker: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/steinweg.pdf- He starts out here by saying that "naturally...we never took any notice of what kind of money [Fisch] paid" so on what basis does he later claim gold notes? - His explanation in terms of going off the gold standard is incorrect. The US went off the gold standard in May 1933. If Fisch had paid with over $1,000 in gold certificates in November 1933, it was already illegal. Just as it was illegal for Gartner to supposedly buy $150 of them. He talks of Gartner going down on the last day to exchange his gold notes but that was in May 1933. He is clearly confusing separate incidents. - He seems to imply (though it's unclear) that he came forward after reading Barr's account. But the Barr incident was with a non-gold note, a $5 bill. - He implies that the Garter deposit was independently identified as ransom money by the Federal Reserve which we know it wasn't. - Finally, on Steinweg, I'm not sure I agree Michael that the money Fisch used was not the proceeds of Hauptmann's cheque. I will have to look at that further. - I do have a photograph of Fred Aldinger somewhere, I will try to find it. He was a car mechanic. - Amy, the linkages between the various withdrawals and deposits are just my best guess. In some instances - such as the September 1932 ones - it may be a withdrawal which was then used for spending money and the balance deposited elsewhere within a few days. In December 1932 and January 1933 the cumulative withdrawal of $1,300 prior to Christmas is almost matched by a deposit of $1,287.50 after Christmas. Clearly Christmas was bleak that year. Why he withdrew the money and then subsequently didn't need it (apparently) is hard to say. January 10 was also the day Hauptmann opened his safety deposit box account at CSB so it was a busy one for him. He then had to high-tail it to Mt Vernon to deposit $139 in coins. He deposited a further $186 on January 16, the day he and Anna left for Florida. Either she was understanding or he went early. - Yes, a number of ransom bills were traced to cigar stores. A number were traced to restaurants too. People ate, people smoked. There is one, of course, which is maybe meaningful. It was passed in a cigar store on 3rd Avenue on March 1, 1933. Perhaps a celebration of sorts. Rab -
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 9, 2013 16:17:19 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 9, 2013 16:17:19 GMT -5
I have been arguing the “Izzy and Fritz” angle, but I will have to say that, once again, my own logic gets in my way.
I ask myself this question: If I was the Lindbergh kidnapper—whether as a loner or as part of a team--how would I dispose of the money?
Here’s how I’d do it. New York is a big city. So I would go to various neighborhoods where nobody knew me. Then I would look for busy cashiers—cashiers that were dealing with lots of people, who looked a little tired, who wouldn’t remember me from a hundred other customers. So I’d get in lines at busy grocery stores, busy department stores, and—yes—movie theaters, where dozens of transactions occur within an hour. I would only pass one note at a time, because a cashier might remember a man with more than one note. I wouldn’t bother with banks, because those guys would be more vigilant and more likely to have a list of serial numbers. (The gold certificate deadline would be a different story, of course.)
Now here’s what I WOULDN’T do. I wouldn’t sit in a pool hall, which I had previously frequented, and where people were apt to know me, and try to sell a whole bunch of ransom bills to a stranger. Even if I used a phony name with the stranger, it would only be a short time before the buyer got busted. And after the buyer was cleared of suspicion in the kidnapping, he’d be describing me to a police sketch artist. The sketch would then go into all the newspapers, and in short order my name would be known. Even I if beat it to Germany right after the sale of the hot money, Germany would deport me back to America, because no country would have given sanctuary to the murderer of Lindbergh’s son.
In short, while I don’t rule out Izzy and Fritz dealing in Lindbergh ransom notes, logic—like about the Lilliput—is pointing me back to Hauptmann again. Of course, this still doesn’t explain the signature on the JJ Faulkner slip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 9, 2013 17:09:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2013 17:09:17 GMT -5
Thanks Rab for explaining about the withdrawals and deposits. Guessing is about all one can really do unless there is something more concrete to attach them to. Do you think it might be possible that some of the withdrawals Hauptmann made could have been given to Fisch so he could make fur purchases (so Hauptmann thought) for their partnership?
I also find Steinweg's statement confusing. I read through it several times and was still confused. I really thought he was talking about the spring of 1933 not the fall when Gartner was depositing gold notes. I know that on between April 27 and May 1, 1933, $3,980 dollars in ransom gold certificates were exchanged for greenbacks at three NY banks. I know $2,980 were the Faulkner deposit. I wondered if the other $1,000 might have been Gartner's deposits.
Yes Michael, I remembered about the lady in green as soon as I read your post. I was not aware of the identity of the other woman. Thanks for that!
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 11, 2013 10:12:25 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Apr 11, 2013 10:12:25 GMT -5
For BR, I agree. Those who were passing the ransom bills were not doing it in such a slipshod fashion. Hauptmann's downfall was holding onto the gold. If he had rid himself of it earlier and held onto the non-gold, I don't believe he ever would have been caught. Also, consider the economics. If you've just risked life and limb to kidnap the Lindbergh baby is your first action to start dumping the money at 40 or 50 cents on the dollar? It makes no sense when individual bills could be passed so easily.
For Amy:
- Could the withdrawals have been given to Fisch? Well, perhaps, but then that increases Hauptmann's unexplained enrichment even further. As I've said, my accounting is overly generous to Hauptmann because I net the total deposits against the withdrawals. If some withdrawals never made their way back into his account then subsequent deposits were fresh unexplained money. I think, though, that you highlight something which is often overlooked (including by Kennedy and others). If Hauptmann was profiting from furs then the corollary must be true: he was investing in furs. And where did that money come from? My accounting of his excess expenditure over income doesn't include the money he claims he invested in furs because I don't believe there were any profits (and by his own claims he made a significant loss overall on the partnership). So it's a two way street: fur profits must mean fur investments which is just a deeper hole of unexplained income.
- Gartner, of course, could not have deposited ransom money from Fisch in May 1933 because Fisch didn't buy his tickets until November of that year. Perhaps Gartner deposited some gold certificates of his own at that point. There are no investigative reports tying him to such transactions, though. The entire episode doesn't add up.
Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 14, 2013 11:04:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 11:04:51 GMT -5
Rab,
In Flemington, Edward C. Mulligan from Hauptmann's brokerage firm testified that he had seen Hauptmann with Fisch at the firm at least 5 or 6 times. I would suspect that something monetary is going on between these two guys. Why else would Fisch be there with BRH? Because Mulligan did not see an exchange of money taking place between Fisch and Hauptmann does not mean that one didn't before entering the building or after leaving. Hauptmann was withdrawing money that leaves the account and never returns, some amounts that are sizable. Since BRH isn't out buying new cars, jewelry and such could he have been giving Fisch money to buy furs and receiving receipts from Fisch that were bogus? I know that Hauptmann was keeping a book on their fur business. Did Fisch keep records of any kind?
I have also read that Fisch had purchased stock in August 1933, 100 shares of Truscon Steel at a total cost of $932.50. Did Fisch have an individual stock account with a firm that Hauptmann was not associated with? If Fisch was destitute, how did he buy this stock?
Amy
|
|