Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 17:24:19 GMT -5
Have you seen any of the Nosovitsky documents that Pelletreau based his handwriting findings on? I have not. I do not see any of the Pelletreau documents printed in Behn's book either. That is disappointing. It would have been very helpful to his readers if he had done this. Being able to see what someone claims are matching "k's" would have gone a long way in proving his point. Pelletreau calls the ransom note k a prototype k. Behn's book says on pg 373 the following: "Nowhere, in Pelletreau's estimation, was Nosovitsky's k more like the prototype k (ransom note) than in the bank-slip signature of J.J. Faulkner and in the subsequent letter Faulkner wrote Governor Hoffman to proclaim Hauptmann's innocence."Here is a link to the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip. Please look at the k in that signature. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NY-USA-APHS256888-Charles-Lindbergh-/2c6c3fb965e04a789e031ea650509229/36/0Here is link to one of the ransom notes. Please check out the words that use a k in them. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/gobetween.jpgAll the k's in the ransom notes look the same way throughout. If Nosovitsky wrote the deposit slip and the letter to Governor Hoffman, based on the k alone, I cannot draw the same conclusion as Pelletreau did that Nosovitsky wrote the ransom notes. I am not a handwriting expert but you don't need to be when you look at the deposit slip and the ransom note. The letter k is made differently in these documents. They are not even close to looking the same.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 4, 2014 17:44:29 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, lightningjew, romeo12, et al:
Thanks, Amy, for that link to the Falzini blog. While the blog's subject is for the most part the ransom notes and their "signatures," there is mention of the "Birratella séance," which is one weird aspect of the Lindbergh kidnap case that seems to deserve more attention than it generally receives.
It is mentioned in Behn's book, and if what is reported there is correct, it was Breckinridge and Rosner, informally representing Lindbergh, who met with Birratella and Cirrito, two psychics, for a séance on March 6, 1932 at a hotel in Princeton. The psychics, according to Behn, said that the boy was in a house four and a half miles northwest of Hopewell. (Not quite sure about this, but wasn't that the approximate distance and direction from Lindbergh's estate where the body was found two months later?) Cerrito, according to Behn, told Breckinridge to be at his office at 9:00 the next day, and then the next day a ransom letter arrived at Breckinridge's office, though he himself was not there at the time. Then, too, Birratella and Cerrito were based in the Bronx.
All of this suggests that Birratella and Cirrito had some connection to the kidnappers and /or ransom note writer(s)/extortionists. Yet they seem to almost disappear from the thinking of law enforcement and other investigators of the case. Would anyone know if these two were ever considered serious suspects in the kidnap and/or extortion plot and if they were ever interviewed by investigators, government or private? It might be interesting to see if either had FBI or NYPD files, and if so, what might be in them. One interesting issue concerning them might be specific connections to Condon, Hauptmann, and/or Nosovitsky, all of whom were connected to the Bronx at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 4, 2014 20:25:48 GMT -5
To Amy et al:
"Have you seen any of the Nosovitsky documents that Pelletreau based his handwriting findings on?"
I would think that Pelletreau likely submitted a fairly detailed handwriting report to Gov. Hoffman, for whom he was working when the "Faulkner" letter to Hoffman arrived in Jan. 1936, which quite likely is in Hoffman's files. I believe I've read that copies of parts of that "Faulkner" letter to Hoffman were printed in the New York Daily News. So going through the Daily News Jan. 1936 microfilm may provide you with more known samples of "Faulkner" handwriting. Also, I believe that copies of the "Faulkner" deposit slip were printed in some newspapers in 1933.
BTW, I'm not 100% sure that the copy of that "Faulkner" deposit slip from the Federal Reserve Bank, which you linked to, is authentic. It was produced by AP in 2009, and by then, AP's reputation for journalistic integrity had diminished. Furthermore, for whatever reason, the deposit date on the purported slip was originally left blank or whited out by AP in its reproduction.
One other important thing to bear in mind was that Noso ("Faulkner") was a master forger, which implies that his writings probably gave handwriting experts an unusually difficult time.
FWIW, there could be an additional specimen of Nosovitsky's handwriting in Behn's book: a photo of a "Naval Credential" in the photo section of the book, but which Behn admits could be a forgery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2014 20:50:24 GMT -5
Here is a sample, for what it's worth, of Nosovitsky's handwriting from 1925:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 6:09:01 GMT -5
The reason this image is dated 2009 by AP is that they enlarged the signature portion of the deposit slip so it could be seen better for reviewing purposes in 2009. That is the reason I chose this image to use. Being able to see that "k" more clearly is helpful. I am giving you another link to the Corbis image. It contains the full deposit slip plus a signature portion of the letter Gov. Hoffman received from J.J. Faulkner. They did this so people could compare the two signatures. These images are not fake. They are photographic reproductions of the real items. www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U758543INP/new-york-money-slip?popup=1Thanks Michael for posting Nosovitsky's writing. I find it helpful. If this letter wasn't dated 1925, I would be very interested in who this "Mueller" is that he is speaking about!!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 5, 2014 9:50:32 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, et al:
Much thanks for posting the images. I'm not a certified forensic document examiner, but I have received some informal "tutoring" from friends who are. I think it's quite apparent that the two "J. J. Faulkner" signatures, the one on the deposit slip, and the one on the letter to Gov. Hoffman, were in all likelihood done by the same person. That "k" in "Faulkner," which looks like an upper case "K," but which should be lower case, is very unusual in general, and the odds against two different individuals, both connected to Lindbergh case, using the same name with the same unusual letter formation in the signature, would be astronomical.
There are also some important points that can be seen in and speculated upon in the 1925 memo known to be written by Noso (who signs it as "Anderson - Augenblick") In terms of letter formation, that inappropriate upper case "K" again appears as the last letter of "Augenblick," just like it appeared inappropriately in the "Faulkner" signatures. This again is a very unusual feature which suggests by itself that Noso and "Faulkner" are very possibly one and the same; as we know, there is other evidence that pretty much establishes this as undisputed fact, e.g., the use of other aliases with "J. J.", NYPD records, FBI records, the AP file card on the Nosovitsky suit vs. Condon.
Also, from the 1925 Nosovitsky memo, written in English, there are inappropriate capitalizations of the first letters of certain words. In German, just about any noun is capitalized. Thus a writer familiar with German but not as much with English might be expected to make inappropriate capitalization errors when writing in English. Futhermore, the name "Augenblick" he gave himself (attached to "Anderson", which he is known to have used as an alias) is definitely German; actually it means "instant", or more literally, "blinking of eyes." Then again, he's tracking down a guy named Mueller, which is a common German name. What all this adds up to is that Nosovitsky, though not a native German speaker, had German language skills, as mentioned in Behn's book. He might also have had Norwegian language skills as well, as Behn mentioned that he spent a little time in Norway. (BTW, German and the Scandinavian languages are considered to be in the same "family.") He might have passed himself off as a Scandinavian at times with the alias "Anderson." This all connects with "Cemetery John", who supposedly told Condon he was Scandinavian, though he is alleged to have spoken with a German accent.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 5, 2014 10:21:15 GMT -5
To Amy et al:
Still don't understand why the date on that "Faulkner" deposit slip is missing. I'd assume that would be an essential part of the record for both the customer and the bank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 13:04:54 GMT -5
The "seance" days after the snatch fits in with my recent thought that the "baby snatching" "baby switching"--Amy and others' claim that their parent or they themselves are the lost Lindbergh baby is a form of the "GYPSY baby snatching/stealing" formula that became a strong stereotype in films during the 1930s - "Heidi" all the way to the 1940's - "No Sad Songs For Me" 1950. The Seance fills in the gap with the Lindbergh mind-set, as that type of "Psychic" is Gypsy-defined. Doubts as to the money-hunger of the kidnappers fits this scenario as possession of the baby trumps possession of money in the Gypsy scenario. The GYPSY world is more Theatrical than Cultural in this case and the fact that Warburg was in the Theater at this time working with Joe Cook a.k.a. Lopez, of Mexican/Spanish Gypsy lineage (?), at least Circus Sideshow GYPSY connections makes that world worthy of thought in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 13:24:04 GMT -5
The Web says there has been an extended family of Roma Gypsies living in Lake Hopatcong N.J. for years, there are 45 Gypsy bands in the area, and Edison N.J., 30 miles from Lake Hopatcong has been an area of large Gypsy population throughout the century. This puts Joe Cook house parties with James Warburg in attendance in the middle of a Gypsy world at the time of the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Jul 5, 2014 16:16:04 GMT -5
I think what you read could pertain to immigrants within that area more than your typical "Gypsy" as known today. My grandparents families immigrated from Albania into Southern Italy and were considered Gypsies by the Italian people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:30:52 GMT -5
I have finished reading the Behn chapter on Nosovitsky. He concludes that there is nothing to his knowledge to prove that Nosovitsky was Cemetery John and that he ever received the $50,000 ransom at St. Raymonds cemetery on April 2, 1932. The only thing Behn was able to verify was that Nosovitsky used the alias J.J. Faulkner. I agree with Behn's findings.
Michael, Behn mentions in his Nosovitsky chapter, page 373 about the possibility that Breckinridge might have had his aides show Condon a picture of Nosovitsky two months after the ransom had been paid to see if Condon could recognize Noso as CJ. Would you know if Condon was ever asked to look at pictures of Nosovitsky? Apparently a woman by the name of Anne B. Sloane wrote to the NJSP in June 1932 saying that Noso kidnapped and killed Charles Lindbergh Jr. Perhaps these two things are tied together?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2014 19:05:32 GMT -5
Michael, Behn mentions in his Nosovitsky chapter, page 373 about the possibility that Breckinridge might have had his aides show Condon a picture of Nosovitsky two months after the ransom had been paid to see if Condon could recognize Noso as CJ. Would you know if Condon was ever asked to look at pictures of Nosovitsky? Apparently a woman by the name of Anne B. Sloane wrote to the NJSP in June 1932 saying that Noso kidnapped and killed Charles Lindbergh Jr. Perhaps these two things are tied together? Behn screws this up so I will try my best to explain what happened in the proper order: 1. Sloan complained that Nosovitsky was involved.
2. Captain Oliver was familiar with Nosovitsky. He immediately said Nosovitsky did NOT fit the description of Cemetery John which was made by Condon.
3. A Member of the NY Police Department then shows Condon a picture of Nosovitsky (probably Detective Petrosino on June 6th or 7th). Condon stated Nosovitsky was not Cemetery John.
4. Neither Breckenridge nor any of "his men" had anything to do with this process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:21:55 GMT -5
This is great Michael. You clear this up nicely. Behn had no footnote attached to the paragraph mentioning Breckinridge's aides possibily showing Condon a picture of Nosovitsky. Thanks for putting these events in order and clarifying who did what!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 8, 2014 23:03:36 GMT -5
Sorry Amy. I suggest you read the last paragraph Behn's chapter on Noso again:
"The New York Police Department has never turned its files regarding the Lindbergh kidnapping over to the New Jersey State Police archives or to the FBI. After a protracted series of communications, this author was taken to the NYPD's legal-section library at 1 Police Plaza in New York City, where he was given access to three cardboard banker's boxes that contain what remains of the department's files on the Lindbergh-Hauptmann case. Nothing was found in them to indicate that Nosovitsky was the man who received the ransom money in St. Raymond's Cemetery back in 1932. However, there was something else that did. The author was shown a copy of his criminal record which included his aliases Jacob Nosovitsky and J. J. Faulkner. "
Behn is saying that Nosovitsky was indeed J. J. Faulkner, therefore the writer of all the ransom notes (except perhaps the first), and therefore Cemetery John. Straightforward deductive reasoning on Behn's part. The only possible error there is the faint possibility that Noso was writing the notes for another CJ, which is hard to fathom considering that the note writer was talking about himself as the man that Condon was to meet in the cemetery.
Seems as if the NYPD was trying to protect Noso, but Behn deciphered their secret.
BTW, can you please explain who Captain Oliver was in the case? Hadn't heard of him before, and he's not indexed in Behn's book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 9:20:22 GMT -5
Sorry, Hurtelable, but that is all Behn is saying. He could not find proof of anything else in the NYPD files except that J.J. Faulkner was an alias used by Nosovitsky. That does not make him CJ and it does not put him in St. Raymond's cemetery on April 2, 1932. It does not make him the writer of the ransom notes either. The bank deposit slip handwriting in no way matches to the ransom notes. Even the prosecution admitted this. I will not connect things that just don't connect. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 10, 2014 12:21:50 GMT -5
To amy35 et al:
If you still don't believe that Behn believed that Nosovitsky was Cemetery John, please read the relevant passages on pages 19 and 21 of the paperback edition of Behn's book, discussing Pelletreau's handwriting investigation and Behn's opinion on it. Here is Behn in his own words: "...I grew ever more confident that Nosovitsky had written the J. J. Faulkner letters and signed the bank receipt. When it came to the ransom notes, I differed from Pelletreau. He accused Nosovitsky of writing all thirteen messages. I came came to believe that Nosovitsky had written only the last twelve; his motive: simple extortion." Isn't it apparent that Cemetery John in all likelihood was the same guy who wrote those last ransom messages? After all, the writer said on the next to last note to Condon: "I will meet you." He specifically used the pronoun "I" which means that CJ and the writer of that note are the same individual!
Behn accuses Noso of "simple extortion," which would obviously apply to CJ. And on p. 19, Behn states: "The physicical description of Nosovitsky fit those published on John."
So if Behn isn't saying that he believes Nosovitsky was Cemetery John, what exactly is he saying?
Separately, can someone please clarify the discrepancy between Behn, who states there were 13 ransom notes in all, and Falzini, who claims there were 15?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 10, 2014 12:40:09 GMT -5
This is consistent with Noel Behn's theory that Nosovitsky was being insulated from investigation and prosecution in the Lindbergh case because of favors he had done from them: in particular helping the NYPD solve an unrelated murder case by ratting out an acquaintance.
Re Condon's purported failure to identify Noso as CJ, recall that Condon couldn't ID Hauptmann at first, but then wilted under pressure. Perhaps the NYPD "hinted" to Condon that Noso wasn't CJ as they showed him Noso's photo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 16:31:13 GMT -5
Hurtelable,
It is not about whether or not I believe Behn's opinion on Nosovitsky's possible role in the LKC. When Behn searched the NYPD files he was not able to find any evidence that Nosovitsky was CJ or that he was in St. Raymond's cemetery the night of April 2, 1932. I am sure this disappointed him. The only thing he could verify from those files was that Nosovitsky did use the alias J.J. Faulkner. He is very clear on this. That is what the NYPD file confirmed for him. It is only his theory that this alias ties him to being CJ and extorting the $50,000 dollars from Lindbergh.
I respect Behn's opinion. I just don't agree with it. I am enjoying the book. He makes many interesting points in it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 11, 2014 9:43:32 GMT -5
To amy35:
OK, I'll agree that it's Behn's theory that Noso was CJ. But it's based on more than just Noso being "Faulkner" and "Faulkner" being the author of the ransom notes. It's also based on Noso's character and life story, and his knowledge of German, plus his previous use of aliases with the name "John." So Behn's theory has a lot going for it.
You're correct that the NYPD files didn't specifically identify Noso as CJ. But as Behn indicated in his book and I have previously posted, it could well have been that the NYPD was protecting Noso in this matter in exchange for intelligence that Noso had provided them on other important cases. Couldn't a good part of that protection have been that inculpating information on Noso was removed from his file or that it was never included?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2014 18:56:08 GMT -5
Separately, can someone please clarify the discrepancy between Behn, who states there were 13 ransom notes in all, and Falzini, who claims there were 15? I think this has to do with (2) notes coming together at the same time to both Breckenridge and Condon. I've seen them referred to as "3a" and "4a". BTW, can you please explain who Captain Oliver was in the case? Hadn't heard of him before, and he's not indexed in Behn's book. The New York police effort was headed by Captain Richard Oliver, who pursued the matter with tenacity, as we will see, and the New Jersey effort by Lieutenant “Buster” Keaten and Captain Lamb. In their search they went over the trip sheets of all taxicab drivers in New York for the night of April 2nd, 1932; they posted notices on the bulletin boards of all the big companies asking for the driver to come forward, and they advertised in the taxi driver’s journal – all without success. Sisk was impressed with their work. “It seems hardly possible that the man who delivered the eleventh ransom note didn’t know the police wanted him for questioning, and if he actually was a taxi driver and had no part in the case it seems as though he would have come forward.” (source: caseneverdies.blogspot.com/2012/02/mystery-of-second-taxi-driver.html)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 11:12:03 GMT -5
Anything is possible I suppose, but then, we (and Behn) are only speculating on this possibility. I will admit that I have trouble seeing Nosovitsky being protected as more important than solving the biggest and most tragic case in the world at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 11:19:03 GMT -5
Michael,
Behn mentions in his book (page 6) that Dr. Erastus Hudson had received a J.J. Faulkner letter in mid December 1935 shortly before Gov. Hoffman received his J.J. Faulkner letter. I was only aware of the one the Governor received. Apparently Pelletreau had a copy of it in his file. Have you ever encountered such a letter to Dr. Hudson during your research?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 13, 2014 19:25:54 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, et al:
You will find the complete text of the letter to Dr. Hudson on p. 331 of Behn's book (paperback edition). It is not specifically signed "J. J. Faulkner" but instead by "Jhon." in Pelletreau's opinion, however, it was written by "Faulkner." It hints to Dr. Hudson that the baby could be found at "440 1st Brooklyn." This is in December of 1935, long after the baby's dead body was purportedly found.
Apparently authorities checked out the address and nothing was found. (BTW, there might have been two such addresses in Brooklyn that fit: 440 1st St. and 440 1st Ave. Just a possibility.)
Now why would Noso (aka "Faulkner") be writing to Dr. Hudson, whose only involvement in the Lindbergh case was as a fingerprint developer? What was the purpose of the letter? Seems to me that Noso was just playing a game with law enforcement, kind of saying "find me and catch me if you can." He wouldn't have been the first nor the last criminal to do something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2014 6:19:42 GMT -5
Apparently Pelletreau had a copy of it in his file. Have you ever encountered such a letter to Dr. Hudson during your research? Dr. Hudson was getting a slew of mail concerning the case. Not in the numbers the Governor was getting, however, he was still getting a good amount. When this particular letter came in, it caught his interest and he put it aside. Mary McGill called Pelletreau's attention to it, and he was the one who connected it up. I personally do not see it's connection to any of the other letters, and I think Hudson was more interested in the address, and perhaps the way it was written and not the handwriting (the word " important" written on the envelope is, in my opinion, in Dr. Hudson's handwriting):
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 14, 2014 20:38:43 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35, lightningjew, romeo12, et al:
Thanks, Michael, for your posting of the letter to Dr. Hudson and its accompanying envelope.
The most important thing in the letter very possibly is the author identifying himself as "Jhon" and "a frend [sic] of Dr. Condon." If true, that would mean he is essentially saying that he is "Cemetery John."
Again, the letter and envelope have the same telltale signs of an author who either has some familiarity with the German language or is actually German himself, and is either semiliterate in English or is faking being semiliterate in English, same as the signs in the ransom notes. On the envelope to Dr. Hudson, the addressee is "Mr. Dr. Erastus M. Hudson," which is a direct translation of the German form of address "Herr Doktor." In the letter itself, we again see the inappropriate capitalizations of words such as "blonde" and "basement", yet for some strange reason, the author fails to capitalize the name "Hauptmann" and omits the final "n". He also omits the final "n" of "Brooklyn." One other point: seems like the house number in the address may have been originally "740," than crossed out and changed to "440." Probably wouldn't make a difference, since the address was bogus anyway.
Behn states on p. 331 of his paperback edition that the handwriting is "disguised."
BTW, seems that the envelope was postmarked at Brooklyn Station V. Would anyone know to which post office that would refer? Regardless, we know that Noso was familiar with Brooklyn (as he was the Bronx), having lived there when he was arrested and charged with bigamy back in the 1920s.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 15, 2015 21:28:50 GMT -5
Hurtelable:
I'm just starting to read through this so pardon if it's been answered, but is there any evidence that Noso might hold a grudge for the $50K even past Sr.'s death, and to be switched to the daughter/son-in-law? Always seemed a stretch for me, but sometimes stretches work out. If Richard was street savvy he might well have known people like Noso while others weren't aware of his having those friends.
The taking of the sleeping suite (in one way or another) and disguised footprints show a good deal of crime savvy.
Also using an untraceable ladder - hehe - had to throw that in.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 16, 2015 14:06:56 GMT -5
Yes, if you read Behn, you can get an idea that Noso would have no qualms about taking his grudge against Dwight Morrow Sr. and the money Dwight Sr. had supposedly stiffed him on and using that as motive against the Lindberghs. Noso's was by "trade" a spy for hire, so you can see that he would have no sense of conscience at all.
And yes, Hauptmann and Noso might have known each other. Noso was quite familiar with the Bronx, and had connections with criminal elements there, including at least one Condon relative, "Dinny" Doyle. Noso also spoke and wrote German, language skills he had acquired from spending some time in Germany and which would facilitate relationships with German immigrants like Hauptmann.
BTW, Noso had a wide geographical range of operation both internationally, and within the US and Canada. Aside from his connections in the New York area, he had friends and relatives in Detroit (where he spent some his formative years after immigrating as a child from Europe) and Cleveland, and was known to have been in Quebec at times in the mid 1939s. Some have speculated that Noso eventually moved to Canada permanently and lived there until his death, but I've never seen any proof of this.
FWIW, Jacob Nosovitsky is NOT listed in the US censuses of 1930 and 1940 (hardly surprising). Also, there are very few individuals listed with that surname in either the censuses or in the Social Security Death Index. Nosovitsky apparently is an extremely uncommon name in the United States in the twentieth century.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 16, 2015 16:37:28 GMT -5
My reasoning is that Hauptmann's defense didn't present any reasonable alternative to Richard yet logically it sure seems that he must have had help or possibly wasn't even involved himself except as a fringe player who got stuck with the hard to pass cash. He did get some money after the ransom was paid but could have gotten it in regular funds or perhaps a bunch of the ransom fives.
I don't remember Behn knowing as much about Noso as you do. Other sources?
Also crime savvy - probable use of gloves. There was a fingerprint under one of the cleats on the ladder but could have come from a yard worker or lots of people along the lumber's route.
I assume Noso's prints were known - checked?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 9:08:41 GMT -5
Hurtelable and Jack,
Have either of you ever considered the possibility that Gaston Means and Jacob Nosovitsky might have worked together in the extotion of $100,000 dollars from Evalyn Walsh McClean? I believe that Means and Nosovitsky had some prior history together. McClean's money was never recovered. Could they have pulled this scam together?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 17, 2015 9:51:56 GMT -5
The scam against Mrs. McLean was, in retrospect, merely a "side show" to the LKC. I don't know of any specific connection of Noso to Means, but it doesn't seem to plausible that Noso would be scamming both McLean and Lindbergh at the same time. Just too much to do and too risky, as Means himself found out to his detriment.
|
|