• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

186

only two cars were allowed: Ponzi, p. 149.

186

A conga line of would-be investors: Ponzi, p. 149; “Ponzi Closes; Not Likely to Resume,” Boston Post, July 27, 1920, p. 1.

186

“And three groans for the Post!”: Kenny, p. 197.

187

“The air was tense”: Ponzi, p. 149.

187

The new office he opened that morning: “Mrs. Ponzi Would Not Take Gems,” Boston Post, November 22, 1922.

187

in July alone, Ponzi had taken in: Monthly investment totals come from the federal audit that led to the closure of the Securities Exchange Company and were evidence at Ponzi’s 1922 trial. “How the Bubble Grew,” Boston Evening Transcript, November 6, 1922, p. 24.

188

Ponzi picked up a copy: Ponzi, p. 151.

188

“The situation was especially dangerous”: Ibid., p. 151.

188

Ponzi reached for the phone: Ibid., p. 152.

188

Gallagher was an undistinguished lawyer: http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/gallagher.htm; 1920 and 1930 U.S. Census data; Knights of Columbus, Massachusetts State Officers, at http://massachusettsstatekofc.org/StateOfficers.htm.

189

Pelletier was forty-eight: “Decision of Five Justices for Pelletier’s Removal,” Boston Sunday Post, November 5, 1922; “Summary of the Trial of the District Attorney,” unidentified newspaper clipping, dated February 21, 1922, from the files of the Boston Public Library; “Blackmail Victims Revealed,” Boston American, September 30, 1921, p. 1; Michael Kenney, “Beneath Boston’s Catholic Subculture,” Boston Globe, June 18, 1994, p. 29. Also see Beatty, pp. 195–98.

190

Pelletier and Coakley had even enlisted: “Decision of Five Justices for Pelletier’s Removal,” Boston Sunday Post, November 5, 1922.

190

With his publicity man, William McMasters: “Ponzi Closes; Not Likely to Resume,” Boston Post, July 27, 1920, p. 1; William McMasters, “Declares Ponzi Is Now Hopelessly Insolvent,” Boston Post, August 2, 1920, p. 1; Ponzi, pp. 153–55. It is worth noting that, in their separate accounts of these events, Ponzi and McMasters agreed on general points and certain key details about the conversations with Pelletier, Gallagher, and Allen. However, each framed his account to place himself in the best possible light. Ponzi, for instance, did not mention in his autobiography that McMasters accompanied him to the meetings, which is not surprising considering the animosity that had developed between the two men. As for McMasters, he wrote, “The resumed confidence of his note-holders was due to my own personal efforts. I issued the statements. I directed the stories.” And so on. McMasters’s August 2, 1920, account, which he elaborated upon during several later court hearings, is also suspect because of timing: It was written in the midst of his most fierce effort to discredit Ponzi to the public through the Post. It was almost certainly too flattering not only to himself but also to Pelletier. And Pelletier was no great help, saying only that McMasters’s generous account of his actions “is true as far as my memory serves me” (Wilton Vaugh, “M’Masters in Reply to ‘The Wizard,’ ” Boston Post, August 2, 1920, p. 1). I have relied on demonstrable facts, areas where they were in agreement, and my own logic to sift through the more tortured elements of their accounts.

190

a man going to a cotillion: “Ponzi Closes; Not Likely to Resume,” Boston Post, July 27, 1920, p. 1; “Ponzi Stops Taking Money, Awaits Audit,” Boston Daily Globe, July 27, 1920, p. 1.

192

“Mr. District Attorney”: Ponzi, pp. 154–55.

192

Gallagher agreed to consider Ponzi’s offer: “Ponzi Closes; Not Likely to Resume,” Boston Post, July 27, 1920, p. 1.

193

“I don’t need the money”: Transcript of meeting between Gallagher and Ponzi, read into evidence at Ponzi’s 1922 trial; “Ponzi’s Political Aims, as Told to the Officials,” Boston Globe, November 16, 1922; “Million Is Paid Back by Ponzi,” Boston Post, July 28, 1920, p. 1.

193

they headed toward the State House: “Ponzi Closes; Not Likely to Resume,” Boston Post, July 27, 1920, p. 1; Ponzi, p. 156.