Talk:Isidor Fisch
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Richard Hauptmann Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Richard Hauptmann |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis whole page needs revision and to be properly footnoted. There were people who said Fisch was poor and others who said he was rich. In order to properly give this page proper historical balance I would think all information should be explored then noted. Additionally, Hauptmann never gave Fisch gold notes and this is entirely a fictional account of the situation. Fisch was a "hustler" in which he allowed certain people to think he was rich and others to think he was poor. Part of his "hustle" involved keeping those who he told one thing away from those he told the other. He was an interesting character that should not be summarily dismissed as Hauptmann's "imaginary" scapegoat. Much about this Case can be learned from him, and the more one researches him - the more questions there are. M. Melsky (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
RE: Testimony at Hauptmann's Trial
editShould the following be pointed out? After the sentence,
In April 1934, a few weeks after Fisch's death, Hauptmann wrote to the family advising them that Fisch had left certain articles in his care. In the letter, Hauptmann made no mention of the shoebox or of any money.
Should this perhaps be followed, maybe as a footnote, by something like:
If he was innocent, it's strange for Hauptmann to bring up the matter of his deceased friend's possessions in his care, when someone could have easily known and remembered about the money Fisch left with him. Conversely, it's even stranger for him to elaborate about items in case Fisch's relatives asked Hauptmann whether he had anything of Fisch's, not knowing he had the money, especially if they asked for specific items.
Or is this too interpretive/speculative?
Hauptmann claimed to have been using the money Fisch "gave" him since January 1934. Innocent or not, he knew about it by the time of the letter (Apr 1934). If he was innocent, he clearly didn't intend on returning the money since he omitted mentioning it. Of course, neither an innocent nor guilty man can be expected to mention thousands of dollars his (dead) friend left behind. However, if innocent and Fisch actually left this money, it doesn't make sense for Hauptmann to bring up anything of Fisch's being in his care at all. In case Fisch had mentioned the money to his family, this could only result in an anxious Hauptmann hoping that someone's faded (regarding $50,000!) memory wasn't stirred. A pre-emptive move doesn't make sense, since either he brought up the fact that Fisch had stuff, or apparently the shoebox/money wasn't mentioned if he was asked if he had anything of his. A guilty Hauptmann doesn't have to worry about this and can easily mention Fisch had left stuff in his care, as an offer to the things of the family's dead relative. Certainly it was Fisch's family that contacted Hauptmann first upon Fisch's death for Hauptmann to send a letter about it only a few weeks after (in April).
Hauptmann claimed to have been using Fisch's money since January 1934. Obvious lie since he quit his job 2 days after the ransom (April 2, 1932) and started spending money left and right. So he can't claim he got an unofficial job, like his days as an illegal immigrant in the 1920's, and that the timing was all a misfortunate coincidence (like Fisch applying for a passport the day the child was found - May 12, 1932 - making it look like he's running).
Aside from this, it's obvious Hauptmann was the one who kidnapped the kid, all on his own. There are very few cases prior to the full development of modern forensics where all the evidence is so clearly stacked in one direction. Maybe if he pled guilty and argued the kid's death was an accident from when he/they fell from the ladder, he could've at least spared himself the death sentence (he would've gotten life imprisonment if he pled guilty anyway). And his poor wife, apparently oblivious enough to her husband's character, wants to clear his name for decades after - perhaps the documents they released in the 80's that they found shed more light one way or another.Cornelius (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)