|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 4, 2012 8:02:40 GMT -5
Have finished Gardner, am now reading the FBI Files. Pp. 317-18 of the Files describe a $5 ransom note discovered at a bank on November 24, 1933 and traced to Penn Station, NYC. Although the passer of the particular bill could not be identified, I found the following of interest:
If this person had about 100 $5 bills (well over $8,000 in today’s currency), why was he poorly dressed? (I rather assume he did possess a lot of bills—otherwise he wouldn’t have asked about exchanging them.)
Who goes to exchange that kind of money at a train station window at 10 PM? If your money is on the level, wouldn’t you normally go to a bank? But of course, the banks were particularly on guard for Lindbergh ransom notes. And perhaps this is why the ransom money kept getting spent in stores, restaurants, burlesque houses, etc.—and only turning up at the banks later, secondarily (with rare exceptions like the “JJ Faulkner” deposit that beat the gold redemption deadline).
This person did not proceed to the station cashier after MacWhan’s comment about “good bills.” Why not if he was on the level?
Also, this person, although no age is given, matches Isidor Fisch at five points:
--Looked “Italian or Jewish” (my own first impression of Fisch was that he might pass for Italian; Alfred Hammond got the same “Italian” impression of the man he later identified as Fisch as one of three men in a car near the Lindbergh estate before the kidnapping)
--Height
--Weight
--Complexion
--Dressed poorly (Fisch often did—it was something of a trademark.)
Of course, I realize this could have been some other person, maybe pushing some counterfeit cash. But the fact that a $5 Lindbergh ransom note was traced to Penn Station at that same time strengthens the case. Maybe Fisch got lucky exchanging one bill, and then decided to try offloading a bundle?
With the exception of a $5 bill that was discovered the previous day (Nov. 20, 1933) at the First National Bank, no Lindbergh ransom money had turned up during the preceding five months. Following the Penn Station incident, a somewhat steady trickle of ransom notes began again, including the famed $5 note passed to Cecile Barr at the Sheridan Theater just 5 days later (though the passer’s description didn’t match Fisch).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2012 17:26:53 GMT -5
You've caught my attention with this post. Give me a little time to search my folders on the Ransom Money Passings for any Police Reports on this incident, and I will get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2012 18:36:05 GMT -5
So far here is what I've got....
Lt. Finn and Agent Manning investigated this discovery. There is no individual report on that investigation. What I have are several FBI synopsis which say exactly what you've posted. These were written by Agent Seykora, therefore, that information must be coming from Manning.
I found at the Archives a recap report written by Finn and it was where it "shouldn't" have been and I remember very well thinking no one would ever find it - if they were looking for it. This is why I have such a hard with certain assertions some people make at times toward others.....
Anyway, this report says the bill was discovered on the 24th but they didn't know what day it was actually passed. It also says that every ticket agent was interviewed as well as every other employee handling money but they were unable to get any information of value as to the source of this bill.
So Finn doesn't seem to think MacWhan's recollections meant anything, while obviously Manning felt, at least, it worthy of mention.
I will need to search for a Manning Report which mentions this investigation. That could take time. Manning wrote volumes at times covering many dates, times, places and subjects. It could be in any file that I believed was most worthy of it.
You will find it interesting, I think, that this bill along with the Barr $5 and B-49005340-A all were analyzed by Dr. Gettler and all found to have the exact same compounds on them: animal or vegetable fats.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 5, 2012 9:01:27 GMT -5
If BRH’s attorneys had known of this report, they would have explored MacWhan as a possible witness. MacWhan made his identification long before BRH’s arrest, so no one could accuse him of simply seeing Fisch’s picture in the newspaper and becoming a “witness after the fact.” This is just my opinion, but I believe the sum total of converging circumstances here make it probable that the man MacWhan encountered was Fisch. If that was the case, this would not exonerate BRH, but it would at least vindicate his claim that Fisch had ransom money. Whether or not Fisch was the man at Penn Station, something caused the extortionist(s) to suddenly begin passing ransom notes in November 1933 after a five-month hiatus. Fisch sailed for Germany just 18 days after the Penn Station incident, so was he perhaps trying to squeeze what he still could from the ransom before leaving the country?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2012 8:11:23 GMT -5
I found a couple of reports written by Manning, unfortunately however, they were all for the time period before this discovery.
I've searched my Hauptmann financial folders as well as the (14) J. J. Faulkner folders I've put together. While its possible one exists outside of these folders, most of anything to do with ransom money would be in there. If I do come across something I in the future I promise to post it here.
If the Defense knew about just a few of the things the Prosecution had, I can assure you, there would never have been this charge in the first place. The Prosecution hid exculpatory evidence in order to enable the Murder 1 charge as a real possibility. I cannot impress this fact enough. It's often confused with the idea they believed him innocent - but that just isn't the case.
I wouldn't go that far. It's interesting and deserved more investigation after Hauptmann's arrest. One could argue that since MacWhan didn't come forward after seeing a picture of Fisch to say he was that guy - then it wasn't him.
See what I mean?
I have always been of the opinion that whatever technique in cleaning this money was both clever and sound. But when Hauptmann started to do it himself that led to his demise. I believe Fisch was involved in this process, but its also possible that process involved other people in some way. It's a tangled web, and because others are passing ransom doesn't mean Fisch isn't indirectly behind it.
I have a theory about how most of this was done, and I believe I can prove Fisch at one time possessed ransom. Those two things will be in the "book." Speaking of which my footnotes are now done, but in doing so, I've discovered more that needs to be added to my 1st "Chapter." To give you an idea.... I have (9) pages of footnotes for just this "Chapter" and it could end the debate about this crime concerning its motive.
Of course that is just my opinion, but its why I wouldn't mind getting it out there on its own. Plus it shows what real research can produce, and what any other "Chapter" I decide to put out will be like.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 7, 2012 11:51:06 GMT -5
mike, happy new year, i cant wait to read your book trying to prove fisch was involved, i will be on your ass but in a fun way
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2012 13:41:00 GMT -5
Hi Steve.
I have evidence that would be in addition to what Hoffman found and what Lloyd wrote about in his book. The only way to explain it away would be to support the notion he was NOT "broke" or so poor that he was sleeping around on park benches.
Now remember, the broke argument is what keeps Hauptmann "solo" in Court. So once I bring this out, its a catch-22 for those who want to believe it was actually true.
Don't worry though....its not in the 1st Chapter, and won't be in the 2nd either. I have miles to go before I sleep.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 8, 2012 17:53:43 GMT -5
Never could buy into Wilentz' "Fisch story" being a fish story.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 8, 2012 21:49:17 GMT -5
hi mairi, theres no real evidence that fisch was involved or had all this money. a jewish organization in new york sent money to germany to buy him a headstone after he died. its another tale by hauptman that he told the police. though theres nuttier ones
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2012 8:08:27 GMT -5
Breckenridge's account is "no" evidence? Regardless, there is evidence he had money. It's just whether or not you are willing to consider it had been connected to ransom.
Yes Fisch was a member, and as a member, this is what he was entitled to.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jan 9, 2012 16:55:23 GMT -5
This had occurred to me also. Maybe MacWhan saw Fisch’s picture in the papers and it didn’t look like the guy at Penn Station. But there could, of course, be other reasons MacWhan didn’t come forward—died, moved away, didn’t want to get involved, or conceivably didn’t actually notice Fisch’s picture in the papers and make the connection.
Incidentally, just to clarify, the quotes in the preceding post were not from me.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 9, 2012 17:56:23 GMT -5
beckinridge to my understanding didnt say it was fisch. as far as the money goes he was broke theres no evidence he had ransom money unless hauptman gave him some
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2012 21:36:44 GMT -5
BR - I fixed them....thanx for pointing it out.
Steve - there is evidence which I plan on putting in my "book." I won't debate it now, so once its out I believe there will be debate but not the kind that is going on now.
As far as Breck...his account is far more creditable then Whited, Rossiter, or Hochmuth. He needed no coaxing or promises to say what he did either.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 10, 2012 17:52:10 GMT -5
Hi Wolf2, I hope your new year is starting out well.The winter weather here is back and forth, back and forth. Hope it's not too bad where you are. I really love this forum. Varying viewpoints keep things interesting for me. Can hardly wait for Michael's' book. All the best to you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2012 20:35:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement Mairi.
This has been very slow, I know, which is why I'd like to get out the 1st "chapter" in any way that I can - so it can get "out there"... Otherwise, it will be a long time before a finished product will be complete.
As far as Fisch goes, I see a series of differing attempts to slow down any thoughts on his involvement. Firstly its to say he was broke and sleeping on park benches. Yet, during the Depression (while people were starving and in bread lines) he's taking dancing lessons so he can improve his ability to "Tango."
So once that's proven then it moves to something different - like - he had money but it had nothing to do with his partnership with Hauptmann.
And once that's proven then it moves to the fact he had money but it had nothing to do with ransom. Even though both he and Hauptmann are hand-in-glove spending money on stocks and furs.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 10, 2013 8:57:51 GMT -5
There are charges that "exculpatory evidence" was withheld from the defense. Sorry, but most of the claimed "exculpatory evidence" wasn't evidence at all and therefore there was nothing to withhold. We know Hauptmann's first defense lawyer had the ransom notes examined by an expert, who said they were all written by the same man. The defense never told the prosecution about that "damming evidence" now did he? Of course, he had no legal requirement to tell the prosecution about that. Those who claim that the prosecution "withheld exculpatory evidence" often have a strange idea of what constitutes "evidence." This irrelevant story about the guy at the train station asking asbout exchanging $5 bills is a good example of something that cannot under any circumstances be classified as evidence, except, perhaps , in the vivid imagination of some. The same bogus claim was made about "missing exculpatory evidence" with respect to the shoe plaster casts made in the cemetery. They didn't match Hauptmann so were undoubtedly discarded as simply footprints of some unknown Joe, not Cemetery John, which the authorities knew to be Hauptmann. And no one could call the evidence "exculpatory" since there is no good reason to assume the prints to have been made by Cemetery John. It's rather funny that when Condon says something the person agrees with , that's evidence, and when not, then Condon suddenly becomes a senile old man.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2013 9:24:29 GMT -5
This is an interesting position Art. So what you are saying is if the State deems that something "wasn't evidence" then they don't have to turn it over? When you have the investigations in front of you, like I do, I can see what they pursued as evidence for years - all the way up to the point where it didn't connect Hauptmann.
That doesn't mean he's not involved. But it does mean the Defense should be made aware of it. It's what caused Dr. Hudson to jump ship to the Defense. He asked Wilentz, for example, if he planned on turning over the NJSP's fingerprint evidence to the Defense. When he found out this was going to be concealed from them, he risked his entire career (if not future) by giving them this information himself.
It doesn't work this way. If the Police were convinced they were Cemetery John's prints, they cannot reverse course by hiding the evidence when they, ex post facto, determined they weren't. This must be disclosed so their theories and/or reversals can be challenged. Might the Defense have asked informed questions about those casts on the Stand in Flemington if such evidence had been turned over? Absolutely. Instead they had to find something about them in the Newspaper once it was already too late.
They made at least one cast in Hopewell then denied their existence - even to the Governor - up until the time he proved they had existed. By the time he got his hands on that evidence they were "ruined."
You cannot get past this evidence. That print belonged to one of the Kidnappers. If they could connect it to Hauptmann they would have used it. They took every pair of shoes he owned then even went to his Shoemaker.
What's funny is that you are the only one who makes this claim. Condon is unreliable. He could be telling the truth or he may not be. The only way to figure it all out is to study what he says, and when - then try to develop a pattern or something to figure it out. You cannot assert something is black or white when it is several shades of grey.
|
|