I don't see any logic or purpose in wondering about the ransom cash still with Hauptmann after 2 1/2 years. The IRS provided a net worth statement for Hauptmann of close to $50,000. That would prove beyond doubt, even to those with the most fertile imagination, that Hauptmann never had an accomplice of any kind, which the physical evidence already clearly shows to be the case (the abandoned ladder and chisel, ransom notes, etc) . Unless and until someone can explain how an unemployed carpenter who rents an apartment and whose wife works can apparently suddenly has a net worth equal to the ransom, then I claim there is no ransom money to find and I fail to see why anyone would think there is. Answers anyone?
Unless and until someone can explain how an unemployed carpenter who rents an apartment and whose wife works can apparently suddenly has a net worth equal to the ransom, then I claim there is no ransom money to find and I fail to see why anyone would think there is. Answers anyone? (Art)
From my research, I found money had to exist prior to his trip to California in order to explain Hauptmann's actions before and immediately after. This idea that he expected to come into the 50K so he zero'd himself out in anticipation of these funds doesn't work in my opinion.
So how much was it? I don't know because it wasn't in his books. That's why these totals can be skewed because it certainly was not Ransom Money.
The IRS provided a net worth statement for Hauptmann of close to $50,000. That would prove beyond doubt, even to those with the most fertile imagination, that Hauptmann never had an accomplice of any kind, which the physical evidence already clearly shows to be the case (the abandoned ladder and chisel, ransom notes, etc) . (Art)
Which statement do you refer to? Most assumes it was all Ransom Money. I recall Rab's research seems to come up with the possibility of 10K missing.
What's also interesting is the IRS was asking questions and offering ideas as to certain things their "statement" was supposed to have "settled." Isn't that important? They supposedly solve something then 2nd guess it with other possiblities later?
But of course that doesn't mean their original position was wrong. Just that it can be questioned.
Arthur, the analyses of Genau and others are somewhat disingenuous. It is not possible to fully account for $50,000 in any analysis of Hauptmann's finances but, as with any accounting, it depends on what base you start from and what assumptions you use.
The weakness of the official analyses is that the use Hauptmann's gross deposits to his bank and brokerage accounts. This weakness is often attacked to argue that Hauptmann had no enrichment but that isn't the case. There are obvious examples of Hauptmann moving money between accounts, equally it can't be said that every cent he withdrew from one account ended up in another. So the truth is somewhere in the middle.
It's a similar case with Hauptmann's income and expenditure from April 1932 onwards. There are claims and counter claims. Did Hauptmann really have $4,000 in cash in his house prior to the kidnapping (as Kennedy and others claimed)? Probably not, based on the available evidence, but difficult to say for sure. Did he never earn a dollar from carpentry after April 1932? He probably did, but not a lot.
So, in my own analysis I've tried to be balanced. I have used Hauptmann's net deposits to bank and brokerage accounts, to deflect any accusation that the deposits are just churn between accounts. That shows that from April 1932 to his arrest, Hauptmann's deposits peaked at about $18,600.
So together that's about $25,000. Add the money in the garage plus the amount Hauptman admitted to spending and you're very close to $40,000.
If you believe not all of his deposits were net, that he didn't have the $4,000 in the house or that he had other income after April 1932 then the figures will vary up or down, closer or not to $50,000. By my reckoning there is certainly scope for a minor accomplice but any sensitivity analysis of the figures would should that it's equally possible that Hauptmann accounted for the lot.
Rab - Have you ever looked into Hauptmann's finances before 1932? Are there any records of bank accounts that Richard and Anna had together?
I know that both Hauptmann and Anna worked and that they were frugal people. Still, they were able to do a lot of things like vacations, Anna's trip to Germany, a new car, and other things. Then there is the $4,000 that was in a trunk waiting for them when they returned from California. It just sounds like way too much cash flow from only two jobs.
Yes, I have all of their bank statements and deposit slips from when they first opened accounts in the US all the way up to March 1932. They originally had separate accounts and later a joint account.
It's true that in the years prior to 1932 they had some major outlays:
- they bought a mortgage for cash - they bought a car for cash - they went on holiday to California - Anna went on holiday to Germany - Hauptmann played the stock market
However, the major difference is that pre-1932 these expenditures are supported by transactions in their bank accounts of money built up over time i.e. savings and there is also a frugality about their lives - particularly holidays - that is absent later. The pre-1932 mortgage was bought using cash withdrawn from a bank account. The post-1932 mortgage was bought with cash which appeared out of thin air.
The other major difference pre-1932, of course, is that they were both working. Prior to the Depression, they had both worked hard, lived very frugally and saved money. But by 1932, things were very different. Work was hard to come by for Hauptmann, he had lost several thousand dollars in the stock market and they had only about $200 left in their bank account.
I have promised others to finish my long overdue accounting of their bank deposits all the way back to their first accounts. I'm hoping to get it finished in the next month or so. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions, just ask.
A question for both Michael and Rab; There has been a proposition offered ( I believe by Michael) that Hauptmann may have received money in the year prior to the kidnap as a type of down payment. I don't know that I believe that, but I did wonder if BRH had been involved in some crime(s) prior for which he gained money. Is there any evidence of unexplained enrichment prior to 1932?
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 24, 2013 10:29:58 GMT -5
It is being suggested in this thread that, after the kidnapping, Hauptmann made purchases and transactions as a result of his enrichment with ransom loot.
However, were any of these transactions ever traced by serial numbers to bills from the ransom payoffs? Were not financial institutions regularly checking for those serial numbers?
I suppose one could argue that Hauptmann laundered the money before making the purchases. But if that’s the case, why didn’t he use laundered money at the places that got him snagged—i.e., the Warner-Quinlan gas station and the fruit store?
A question for both Michael and Rab; There has been a proposition offered ( I believe by Michael) that Hauptmann may have received money in the year prior to the kidnap as a type of down payment. I don't know that I believe that, but I did wonder if BRH had been involved in some crime(s) prior for which he gained money. Is there any evidence of unexplained enrichment prior to 1932? (Kevin)
I think Rab is working on his pre-1932 finances from the Deposit slips. I'll be interested to see what he finds. But to answer your question (from my present perspective) I believe he did. His books stop, but I believe the evidence is in his actions. I also believe the possibility that he had funds which weren't in the Bank. Take his claim of the 4K in the trunk. I believe this could either be a possibility or a Freudian slip of some kind - akin to the Fisch Story.
As far as prior criminal behavior - there's no proof of it, but there is evidence of his willingness to make what he believed to be "easy" money. So I'd be willing to consider that he had if someone gave me something to think about.
I suppose one could argue that Hauptmann laundered the money before making the purchases. But if that’s the case, why didn’t he use laundered money at the places that got him snagged—i.e., the Warner-Quinlan gas station and the fruit store? (BR)
I believe this is a good question. As Rab has pointed out in the past, the $5s were much easier to pass then the rest. After that I suppose the $20s Fed Resv notes were easier then the Gold $10s and $20s. But I've always believed someone else was laundering money, and for whatever reason once Hauptmann started he wasn't as good at it.
Of course I could be wrong. But he was on Wall Street speculating stock all day so it seems he was tied up most of the time.
For Kevin: I don't see any evidence of criminal activity (or at least criminal gains) prior to 1932. But I need to finish my accounting of the deposit slips to support that view. The circumstances, as we all know, were very different pre- and post-1932. Certainly there is no evidence of Hauptmann having any enrichment in the year prior to the kidnapping. Quite the opposite. He had lost heavily in the stock market in 1929 and, as per my earlier post, he and Anna were down to $200 in their bank account. They were late paying utility bills and the rent and for the first time (as far as I'm aware) Hauptmann paid to find a job (at the Majestic). And then in the course of March 1932 things changed completely.
For BR: it hardly takes a criminal genius not to deposit ransom money to his own bank accounts. This is a specious argument. I would suggest you review, for example, the details of Hauptmann's coin deposits to his Mt Vernon account (the details of which are in the archive section of this board) as just one indication of money laundering. The timing of it, the amount, the change of pattern from pre-1932, the repetition of it in August 1934. One has to look at the full picture. Warner-Quinlan was laundering. Do you find it feasible that someone travels nearly 100 blocks to buy 98c worth of fuel or 150 blocks to buy small amounts of fruit and vegetables? The situation in late 1934 was much different in terms of the rarity of gold certificates, the likelihood that the $5 and non-gold $20 bills were exhausted and also increased monitoring by the authorities. There is an abundance of information in the archives about Hauptmann's finances as well as facts which disprove the Fisch story and so on.
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 24, 2013 13:27:57 GMT -5
Given the fact that owning over $100 in gold money had recently become a crime (punishable by up to 10 years in prison--even if the government was not strictly enforcing it), together with the fact that Hauptmann was an illegal immigrant, I can see how he might have been motivated to be cautious in disposing of these notes, for possible reasons other than a conscious awareness that it was Lindbergh kidnap loot.
Again, I ask—if Hauptmann made his earlier purchases and deposits through laundered kidnap loot, where did all of that the original kidnap loot go? Was even one bill of it ever traced to Hauptmann?
The other major difference pre-1932, of course, is that they were both working. (Rab)
I look forward to your pre 1932 financial accounting of the Hauptmanns. Hopefully it will reveal a more comprehensive look at their financial situation before the ransom payoff. I have read about this period of time in different books and end up with differing views. Some clarity in this area will be really appreciated.
In one of Michael's earlier posts on this thread he mentions about money that wasn't in the books. It will be interesting to see if the $4000 in the truck can be explained by what is "in" the books.
For BR: no, not a single note was traced to Hauptmann until the one that led to his arrest. Obviously if one had been traced earlier then he would have been investigated earlier. I'm not really sure what the point you're trying to make.
The situation in late 1934 was markedly different to the previous years, as you allude to yourself in terms of the gold notes. Prior to May 1933 there was no issue with passing gold notes and certainly there was never any issue with passing the $5 bills and the non-gold $20s. But it was not precisely about the gold note recall and the fact that hoarding more than $100 was illegal. It was the extent to which bills circulated which became important. If you read the investigations of bills found in 1932 and 1933 the single biggest problem was that the trail very quickly went cold after the initial investigation. And the reason was that the bills were in general circulation and passed from person to person and business to business and so they were very difficult to trace. Come August 1934, Hauptmann only had gold notes left. They weren't illegal to own but they were less common and, crucially, they didn't circulate. Once one made it to a bank, it didn't go back out again. And that meant that the trail was much shorter than it had been previously.
If you look at Hauptmann's finances you can see substantial cash deposits to his accounts around May 1933. It seems clear that this is as a result of exchanging a large number of bills in the rush of the May 1 1933 deadline for the surrender of gold notes in excess of the $100 personal limit. From later in 1933 to August 1934 the pattern of Hauptmann's banking is of small withdrawals, apparently for living expenses. During this time he partnered with Fisch and bought a large number of stocks (in my opinion on Fisch's behalf but using his own money). He did this in the belief that Fisch was providing security in the form of fur purchases. When Fisch died he discovered, of course, that there either were no such furs or what furs did exist were worthless. And that was the trigger for having to take the risk of passing gold notes. To do so he repeated the pattern of 1932: he opened a bank account (Manhattan Savings in 1934 vs Mt Vernon Trust in 1932) and started to deposit to it the fruits of laundering.
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 28, 2013 22:57:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Rab. Just looking at this quickly—I haven’t thought it through--I see that the opening of the Bank of Manhattan account occurred at about the time BRH said he discovered Fisch’s box. Any chance that he opened the account to channel funds from the now-illegal gold notes? In other words, is it possible that he was “laundering” gold certs because they were illegal in of themselves, as opposed to knowing they were kidnap money? Were not the gold certs in Hauptmann’s garage wrapped in newspapers dated from the very summer 1934 time frame when he alleged he discovered the contents of the box?
Also, I see what you are saying about the large deposits in earlier 1933, and I agree these would probably relate to the gold deadline. I see these deposits were to the Steiner Rouse account. As you believe he was using that account to buy stocks for Fisch at that time, is it possible that some of those deposits were coming from Fisch, in the form of money that Fisch—as opposed to BRH—had laundered?
For BR: the Manhattan Savings Account was certainly a laundering account. What is important is that it was a repeat of the pattern of 1932 when Hauptmann also had a laundering account, at Mt Vernon Trust. So nothing that he did in 1934 was any different that what he had done in 1932.
If you look in the archive section there are posts about how some of the ransom money which Hautptmann admittedly passed in1934 was in the original packing order sequence and forms a pattern of notes passed from 1933 into 1934. There is also a pattern in terms of where the money was passed and gaps between passing. Understanding these points, particularly the first one, destroys the Fisch story. It is clear Hauptmann had the money all along and any examination of his financial transactions shows that to be the case.
Is it possible that Fisch gave Hauptmann money (laundered or otherwise) in 1933? Sure, it's possible, on the basis that anything is possible. But there is no evidence of it. There is only one example of Fisch giving Hautpmann money: $2,000 in July 1933 which Hautpmann returned to him in November before Fisch sailed for Europe. Hauptmann's accounting of their "partnership" is clearly written after the fact and most likely as an attempt to pry some money from the Fisch family. I firmly believe that Hauptmann made the investments with his own (laundered ransom) money believing that the investments were secured by corresponding fur purchases by Fisch. Of course, when Fisch died, Hauptmann discovered that the furs either didn't exist or were worthless.
For Michael: did Fisch have money? At times, yes, as we can see in the example above. But it's plain that he was operating a Ponzi scheme, borrowing money from one person to pay others, all of them believing in some non-existent investment, whether it be real estate, furs or pie companies. Hauptmann was probably his biggest dupe.
Hi, Rab. I understand what you are saying about the gold certs being passed in sequence. However, since we have this big gap between those discovered in Dec-Jan 1933-4 (time frame following Fisch’s departure for Germany) and those in August 1934 (when Hauptmann says he discovered the contents of the box) why would it have to be Hauptmann passing the notes in late 1933? Why couldn’t it be Fisch peeling them off the top? Without seeing how BRH dried out the bills, I don't think we can state categorically that this process should have randomly reshuffled the order of the first bills.
There are a few items that certainly seem to cast suspicion on Fisch.
First, there’s George Steinweg, who sold Fisch his steamship tickets and travelers checks, and reported that Fisch paid for them with GOLD CERTIFICATES. Steinweg sold some of the certificates to a business partner, who wound up being questioned by police--they forced him to write “JJ Faulkner” over and over. Quoting Gardner (p. 369):
Steinweg said he had talked with bank officials, who confirmed the whole story, especially that they were ransom bills, but the deposit never appeared on any list of recovered money.
Is there any corroboration, outside of Hauptmann, that BRH got the money from Fisch? For one thing, we have Hans Kloppenburg, who said he saw Fisch give Hauptmann the shoebox on the night in question. It might be protested that “Kloppenburg was Hauptmann’s friend, so he lied.” Granted, he was Hauptmann’s friend, but do we have evidence that he was a liar and man of bad character?
And here’s an interesting statement in Gardner (p. 265) that backs up Hauptmann and Kloppenburg:
In January 1936, Governor Harold Hoffman’s special investigator, H. C. Keyes, interviewed some neighbors of Schleser’s, who told another Fisch story: Isidor had brought a small package to the Schlesers' house a few days before he left for Germany, explaining it contained bonds. When Charlie’s wife peeked into the package, she saw money, and that alarmed Isidor, who took it back saying he would leave it with someone who would ask no questions, his good friend Richard Hauptmann.
Next we have the deposition of Arthur Trost that in the summer of 1932, Fisch was trying to sell “hot money” at 50 cents on the dollar.
Now if you check the thread I began in the Ransom section under “Penn Station incident,” we find that a suspicious character, who fit Fisch’s description—not Hauptmann’s—was trying to unload a large number of $5 bills at Penn Station, at the very time that a $5 ransom note was traced to Penn Station.
We also have a statement by Oscar Bruckman, a driver for the crooked Knickerbocker Pie Company run by Fisch and Schleser. According to Bruckman, Fisch asked him if he (Bruckman) would be willing to carry a pistol while Fisch collected a large sum of money. We certainly don’t know if this was for the LKC ransom exchange, but it was around that time. (Gardner, p. 370). According to Gardner (same page) on another occasion Fisch told Bruckman he had “obtained some hot money he needed to get rid of.”
Just what was this “hot money” that both Trost and Bruckman say Fisch was trying to unload? If not Lindbergh ransom loot, what? I suppose one could argue it was counterfeit cash, but do we have any evidence that Fisch was in that particular racket?
Then there is the fact that many of the early ransom bills were found to be folded in a peculiar way—which was not true of the bills found on Hauptmann. A number were traced to burlesque houses, which—to my knowledge—were not a known hangout for Hauptmann. The FBI Files describe the ransom money passed in the years 1932 and 1933--about 50 passings, and not one bill was traced to a man who fit Hauptmann’s description. Nor did people come forward later, after Hauptmann’s picture was in the papers, to say “Hey, this was the guy who gave me the bill”—unless we want to hang our hat on Cecile Barr, who glanced at a ticket buyer whom she originally described as “American,” and believe her testimony over all the people who attended Hauptmann’s birthday party, and think Hauptmann dumped Anna on his birthday because he wanted to see a Walter Winchell movie.
Hauptmann, of course, stated that during the summer of 1934, due to heavy rains, a water leak flooded the closet where Fisch’s shoebox was kept, and that was when he found the bills. There‘s evidence to back this story up. Gustave Miller, the plumber, testified that he fixed the leak Hauptmann was talking about. Newspaper records corroborated heavy rains at that time. And when the police found the ransom bills in Hauptmann’s garage, there was evidence they had been wet, and they were wrapped in newspapers from that same time frame--rather than the time of the kidnapping two years earlier.
Last Edit: Mar 2, 2013 13:49:24 GMT -5 by bookrefuge
BR, your response relies on so many discredited red-herrings and inaccuracies I really don't know where to start. It is impossible that Hauptmann could have found wet money, separated it to dry it (as he claimed) and then reassembled it in the original packing order and then, for the very first bill he passed in August 1934, picked the one which followed the last one passed. There is no credibility in any argument to the contrary on this point.
On Fisch, we know he was involved in dubious activities and it's clear he was running a Ponzi scheme. But there is absolutely nothing to tie him to ransom money.
You dismiss the Barr incident very easily but clearly without full knowledge of the facts or Hauptmann's character or, indeed, the history of the passing of ransom money all of which actually add a lot of credence to the Barr story, regardless of her identification, which must rightly be objectively assessed. You make the point that Barr thought the bill passer American and that therefore it couldn't be Hauptmann. But of the bills Hauptmann admitting passing, the recipients did not always identify him as German and, indeed, one identified him as American. You must look beyond the superficial, particularly the heartstrings depiction of Hauptmann and his family life in books such as Kennedy's.
Can I suggest you move beyond the misinformation in many of the books and try some source research. For example, this nonsense about the bills being folded in a certain way is just that: nonsense. It was an invention of Lt Finn. As for claims that some bills were musty, or had traces of lipstick, or meat, or fairy dust or whatever, it's completely illogical. These were bills which had circulated so who is to say when or how any particular trace or smell was attached to them. In addition, they were used bills to begin with and there was no baseline testing to check what every bill had attached to it before they went in Condon's box. So it's a pointless trail.
The garage money was wrapped in a variety of newspapers spanning several months, from June to September. So even after Hauptmann admitted passing the money he was still re-wrapping it. The reality is that we don't know where the money was or how it was stored prior to when it was found. What we can say is that the passing sequence shows it was in Hauptmann's possession and that it certainly wasn't separated and dried out.
For BR: the Manhattan Savings Account was certainly a laundering account. What is important is that it was a repeat of the pattern of 1932 when Hauptmann also had a laundering account, at Mt Vernon Trust. So nothing that he did in 1934 was any different that what he had done in 1932. (Rab)
Why does he need to do such a thing, and what purpose does this serve?
I am not disagreeing with you here, because this is what it appears to be, but my question is why? His name was on all accounts - even the one with Anna's maiden name was a "c/o Richard Hauptmann" along with the correct street address.
Understanding these points, particularly the first one, destroys the Fisch story. (Rab)
I think the idea that Hauptmann had no idea about any Ransom previous to the supposed date he discovered the Fisch package cannot be supported by the facts. All known facts support his involvement in this crime in some way and his enrichment from the Ransom. What these facts do not prove leave questions about many other things outside of this.
Hauptmann's accounting of their "partnership" is clearly written after the fact and most likely as an attempt to pry some money from the Fisch family. (Rab)
Do you believe this log book was a total "after the fact" invention? Help me remember if Genau, Wilson, or Frank believed this too... It's been a while since I've reviewed this material.
I firmly believe that Hauptmann made the investments with his own (laundered ransom) money believing that the investments were secured by corresponding fur purchases by Fisch. Of course, when Fisch died, Hauptmann discovered that the furs either didn't exist or were worthless. (Rab)
So what did Fisch think Hauptmann was buying the stock with and where did he believe it came from? What explanation do you think Hauptmann told Fisch concerning this stash of limitless Pirate's Gold he had possession of?
For Michael: did Fisch have money? At times, yes, as we can see in the example above. But it's plain that he was operating a Ponzi scheme, borrowing money from one person to pay others, all of them believing in some non-existent investment, whether it be real estate, furs or pie companies. Hauptmann was probably his biggest dupe. (Rab)
I agree that Fisch was a "hustler." I also believe Hauptmann was someone who was in for "easy money." Fisch would indeed borrow from one person to repay the other. But in order for such a scheme to work the Crook is benefiting in some way. So what is Fisch's benefit? Property somewhere? Hidden bank account? Even if he's just repaying and borrowing the original amount still must exist if nothing is being done with it.
I am undecided about Hauptmann being duped. I used to be 100% that he was. He had an excuse ready concerning the ransom he was caught with, and yet another once more was found in the garage. I don't believe he was ad libbing. I believe it was something he considered ahead of time. With this in mind it could be that he knew certain things he pretended not to thinking he could get more of something he may have known wasn't rightfully his, or by acting slighted to cover for the fact he actually was not.
Just what was this “hot money” that both Trost and Bruckman say Fisch was trying to unload? (BR)
My opinion is that Hauptmann and Fisch were in business together. They were laundering ransom money then attempting to show it was legitimate by and through both stocks and furs. I personally believe while Hauptmann was on Wall Street someone else was doing the 'dirty work' in this regard.
I could be wrong of course, and I always watch (and print out) whatever Rab says or notes in his posts because he done so much research and knows more about this angle then probably anyone else.
Rab, you say I’m relying on “so many discredited red-herrings and inaccuracies.” Have the various statements I mentioned--of Steinweg, Trost, Bruckman, Kloppenburg, and the Schlesers’ neighbors--been discredited? If so, when? In his recent book, Lloyd Gardner discussed them too (except for Trost), so Lloyd must have been duped on these issues as well, yet I’ve never seen any of the reports disproven on this board (not that I’ve read the whole board).
Of course, I was not saying Barr was dubious only because she called the ticket buyer “American.” Her report has to be weighed in the balance against the eyewitnesses who placed Hauptmann at his birthday party, and how accurately would Barr remember a face she saw only fleetingly? Presumably, the faces of hundreds of other ticket buyers must have passed her window. You don’t suppose that reward money might have “helped” her memory a little, do you?
Michael—Rab says the reports of the bills being folded up were an invention. Just checking—to your knowledge, is that true? I’ve seen it discussed pretty often in LKC literature, and never heard of its being a fabrication until now. Why would Lt. Finn invent such a story?
Michael—Rab says the reports of the bills being folded up were an invention. Just checking—to your knowledge, is that true? I’ve seen it discussed pretty often in LKC literature, and never heard of its being a fabrication until now. Why would Lt. Finn invent such a story? (BR)
A simple question....
Unfortunately, I have a "not so" simple answer. The first problem is that while many of the NY Reports made it to the NJSP Archives there is evidence that a small percentage did not. Next, I am not exactly sure what Rab means. It could be these folds are meaningless due to the fact many people may or may not have done such a thing back in the day. Furthermore, how many were found this way - if at all?
I have only ever seen reference to the folds (outside of Barr) in three places:
1. Finn's Liberty article where he cites an NY Police Lab Report (not in the NJSP Archives) dated June 1934 concerning (4) $5 Ransom Bills. This Report notes that all (4) had these folds.
2. A "Summary" Report Finn created for NJ after Hauptmann's extradition which states:
Upon examination of this bill (Barr) we found that the bill was folded similar to a number of other bills recovered previously to this date. (p3)
3. Jim Fisher's book where he also states the bill found on Hauptmann had these same folds.
***Here's my "take" on them:
1. Some of the other Reports cited in this article I do have and they are the same. However, there is information Finn writes in these articles which is complete BS - with a capital BS.
2. This Summary doesn't say how many. Additionally, its odd that these folds aren't mentioned in ANY of the Ransom Discovery Reports at the NJSP.
3. Fisher is taking this information, in my opinion, from the Liberty Article. The other part about the folds on the Hauptmann note is footnoted to Det. Sgt. Plebeni as his source. Plebeni is completely wrong. I've been pretty hard on Fisher for the slew of mistakes in his books but on this point I can say that I understand. For example, if Mark had given me this information I would have believed it. But I think I wouldn't have taken the easy way out by not following it up because of the way Fisher presents it to be such a blockbuster piece of information - which is absolutely untrue. (If you are going to slam others for being wrong then YOU had better be right yourself).
Also, Rab could have something I've never seen or overlooked that he is relying on. I've met him at the Archives a couple of times. Once was a black light experiment (don't ask) and the other he was going through the Ransom Money files.
And so in conclusion: I don't know. Aren't you glad you asked?
Firstly, in terms of the description, what Barr actually said was that the man was "apparently American" rather than "American" and given that the conversation between them was brief, that seems to me understandable. Note that Aiello and Altman, who did interact with Hauptmann, described him as having no noticeable accent (difficult as we may find that to believe).
But it is not Barr's identification that is important, suspect as that must be given the intervening time and brief nature of the interaction. It is again about patterns of behaviour. And this is why it is important to look beyond the books. Even the best are limited in terms of how much of a particular incident they can explore. The Steinweg and other accounts were all thoroughly investigated and discounted. You only have to look at the lists of ransom money found - all these reports are still available at the archives - to see that they don't support any of those accounts. Kloppenburg was clearly trying to help his friend but he made no mention of the box when first interviewed.
At the trial there was much testimony of a party the night of the Barr incident and, of course, it was Hauptmann's birthday (and I believe that is crucial to understanding it). But the original statements of those supposedly present at the party make no mention of it. We then have to consider that Anna was very recently out of hospital after giving birth to Manfred. The reason that Maria was there that day was to help her aunt with the baby, not to attend a party. Perhaps there was cake and coffee but the evidence - as opposed to the trial testimony - seems to suggest that there was either no party or that it was something that ended early. There are also references in the recorded jailhouse conversations between Anna and Hauptmann of attempts to "remember" a party that night.
So that leaves the seemingly illogical nature of Hauptmann's actions. Why would he travel all the way down to Greenwich Village to see a movie the night of his birthday? I think the birthday is key. A year previously, a $10 gold ransom bill was passed at a burlesque house on November 26 or 27, again the time of his birthday. According to Barr, the unknown man arrived after the programme had already started and bought the cheapest ticket. According to Finn (and believing Finn is a difficult exercise) there was a ticket missing when he checked the following morning. So that suggests someone - probably this man - didn't actually go to the show. Why? Because - and it's only my theory - Hauptmann on that night was looking for rather more exotic entertainment than a movie, just as he had the year before. I think his birthday held special significance for him. I believe that the movie ticket was just a blind, something to show the suspicious Anna when she - as she undoubtedly would have - asked where he had been. The reality is that the romantic view of Hauptmann as a dedicated family man does not really stand up to scrutiny. We know a used condom was found in his car after his arrest, which strongly suggests that he was unfaithful to Anna. Reading Anna's testimony - both the words and between the lines - it would seem that on occasions she was less than happy with her husband's late night card games and other activities. Statements from Haberland and others about Hauptmann's party habits add to the picture.
Very briefly, on the subject of bill folding. This - in my opinion - is a complete fantasy on Finn's behalf. The report of October 1933 by Agent Wilson says that none of the money found to that date had any peculiar folds or marks. The FBI were openly dismissive of Finn's theory. The $5 bill given to Barr was folded, and I seem to remember reports of one or two other later $5 bills also being folded. But there is absolutely no evidence that this was a habit by whoever was passing the bills. Neither is there any evidence that the bill on Hauptmann at the time of his arrest was folded. In fact, in pictures of the bill it can be clearly seen that it had never been folded in that way. For every Finn there is a Fisher willing to repeat it, but it's a nonsense.
In my earlier life-----long, long ago , I can recall here and there seeing men insert a bill in their watch pocket, hence folds. If this relates to the bills you speak of, I know not-----just a thought
In my earlier life-----long, long ago , I can recall here and there seeing men insert a bill in their watch pocket, hence folds. If this relates to the bills you speak of, I know not-----just a thought (Mairi)
Thanks for sharing. As everyone will see below this is a very relevant observation!
Firstly, in terms of the description, what Barr actually said was that the man was "apparently American" rather than "American" and given that the conversation between them was brief, that seems to me understandable. Note that Aiello and Altman, who did interact with Hauptmann, described him as having no noticeable accent (difficult as we may find that to believe). (Rab)
What's strange is that a couple of people, even when face to face with Hauptmann, couldn't positively ID him. Levitano being one of them. I can check to see who the others were. But my recollection is that Hauptmann ID them thereby relieving them of their burden. Why would he do such a thing, and doesn't this (at least) give rise to the Defense against Barr's ID of him? I can't remember which at the moment, but either Whipple or Waller didn't give any credence to Barr's ID. Since it was "Dog Pile" on Hauptmann after his arrest anything like this might be worth looking into.
The Steinweg and other accounts were all thoroughly investigated and discounted. (Rab)
I just want to go on "record" as saying I don't agree with this.
So that leaves the seemingly illogical nature of Hauptmann's actions. Why would he travel all the way down to Greenwich Village to see a movie the night of his birthday? I think the birthday is key. A year previously, a $10 gold ransom bill was passed at a burlesque house on November 26 or 27, again the time of his birthday....(Rab)
You have no idea how glad I am that you are back. This is great stuff that I do believe only you could develop. You've given me much to think about with this new information. And I want to add my 2 cents into the Hauptmann being unfaithful allegation....
No doubt in my mind whatsoever.
Very briefly, on the subject of bill folding. This - in my opinion - is a complete fantasy on Finn's behalf. The report of October 1933 by Agent Wilson says that none of the money found to that date had any peculiar folds or marks. (Rab)
I did a little more looking into this since my last post. There is so much to consult so I still may have missed something so please keep this in mind....
The Report referenced in Rab's post above is referring to an Exhibit concerning (33) Ransom Bills found between April 6, 1932 thru May 15, 1933. The important observation is here:
No creases or unusual characteristics were found in any of these bills. (p16)
Pretty cut and dry. So none of these bills qualify. However, as I continued what appeared to be a pointless search, I discovered an FBI Lab Report written in August 1934 by Agent Pickering. In this Report I discovered the following blurb:
It is believed that the creases indicating the three-way fold of some of the bills, are without any particular significance because they have been noted on bills in general circulation, however this is only an opinion. (p6)
Nothing about how many or when they were found, but I think considering that Mairi's observation mirrors the Lab Report comments whatever was found hold little evidentiary value.
a used condom, seriously? that is the first time I've read that particular piece of info. my first reaction was "ew", and the second was "at least Bruno was being careful" ;D
with all the philandering & kidnapping & extortion, he must have had large chunks of unaccounted for time away from home. with Anna working all those hours at that time, it was easy for Richard to do. and similar to her not really questioning where their comfortable lifestyle came from during those bleak Depression years, she didn't perhaps look too deeply as to his whereabouts.
is there a list of everything found in his car and on his person when arrested?
that milk bottle of Red's has always intrigued me...
So that leaves the seemingly illogical nature of Hauptmann's actions. Why would he travel all the way down to Greenwich Village to see a movie the night of his birthday? I think the birthday is key. A year previously, a $10 gold ransom bill was passed at a burlesque house on November 26 or 27, again the time of his birthday....(Rab)
Whoa. I don't recall ever reading anything about a bill passed at a burlesque house on Hauptmann's birthday. Of course, I can't claim to have a photographic memory.
But I'm pretty confident in myself enough to believe I'd take mental note of a series of coincidences (or non-coincidences) such as this.
Are there any LKC books that mention this burlesque house?
And while it's on my mind...I'm just thinking out loud here, now, so bear with me...what is the likelihood Hauptmann deliberately went to these places on his birthday to establish either an alibi or a pattern of behavior?
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury...does it make any sense to you at all that this man would travel from the Bronx to Greenwich Village to see a movie--on his birthday?"
Was Anna pregnant with Mannfred the night of the burlesque house birthday incident?
I know that you have done an incredible amount of research on Hauptmann's financial profile. With that in mind, I was wondering if any of your research included information on loans Hauptmann made to people in late 1931 or during 1932. Not mortgages, more like personal loans. I know that he lent money to Hans Mueller. I know that he lent money to Isador Fisch. I am interested in whether Hauptmann lent any money to members of Anna's family - Schoefflers - who I think lived in Brooklyn.
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 19, 2013 16:27:59 GMT -5
At the trial there was much testimony of a party the night of the Barr incident and, of course, it was Hauptmann's birthday (and I believe that is crucial to understanding it). But the original statements of those supposedly present at the party make no mention of it. (Rab)
According to Scaduto’s book (pp. 103-104) when Hauptmann was questioned at the police station immediately after his arrest, he was asked about the movie theatre bill-passing on November 26, and replied: “That’s my birthday. I was home that night. Anna gave me a party, and a few friends came over.”
Now unless Scaduto invented this, it would indicate that the idea of Hauptmann having a birthday party was not something concocted by the defense at Flemington. I suppose that one could argue that BRH had already thought this up as an alibi for passing the bill—but how could he know in advance which bills the police might interrogate him about?
For JD: you won't find the detail about the burlesque house in any of the books. It comes from the source investigatory reports on ransom bill passings. These reports are available at the NJSP archives. You have to look beyond the books, they only scratch the surface.
For Amy: yes, Hauptmann loaned money to many people, including Anna's relatives Ernst and Adolf. This was nothing new, he'd been lending money to people for interest since the mid-20s.
For BR: I'll have to check Hauptmann's interrogations. I was referring, though, to the other supposed participants in the "party", none of whom mentioned it. Just like nobody mentioned any box that Fisch supposedly gave Hauptmann, including Kloppenburg when first questioned. I would also suggest reading the transcriptions of the jailhouse conversations between Hauptmann and Anna. There is clear back and forth on attempts to create alibis for certain dates.
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5