Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 13:06:59 GMT -5
The money angle is certainly there, Amy, but other motivation as well. For money he could have kidnapped just about anyone well to do or their child and come up W/50k a lot closer to Richard's home and if he just grabbed someone off the street with a lot less complications. I agree with what you are saying here about targeting someone else who was not such a high profile target to get 50K. That would make sense, especially if you are a lone wolf kidnapper. I don't think Hauptmann did this alone. I think there is someone else involved who was targeting Lindbergh and Hauptmann was an accomplice who would be well compensated for his participation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2015 13:46:14 GMT -5
The money angle is certainly there, Amy, but other motivation as well. For money he could have kidnapped just about anyone well to do or their child and come up W/50k a lot closer to Richard's home and if he just grabbed someone off the street with a lot less complications. I agree with what you are saying here about targeting someone else who was not such a high profile target to get 50K. That would make sense, especially if you are a lone wolf kidnapper. I don't think Hauptmann did this alone. I think there is someone else involved who was targeting Lindbergh and Hauptmann was an accomplice who would be well compensated for his participation. I also believe there was a much deeper motivation than money, and that Schoenfled had it right for the most part, but I also agree with Jack that his conclusion that the kidnapper was a homosexual was off-base and that Hauptmann was not at all inclined that way. There's no question Hauptmann loved his material possessions and showing them off in an understated and non-chalant "I'm an accomplished man of the world" kind of a way, and that the 50K could have come from just about any well-to-do family. While Hauptmann certainly seemed to enjoy the notoriety following the kidnapping I don't think that was his first intent, nor did he expect Lindbergh to call the police. The nursery note advises Lindbergh that the kidnapper will be in touch in 2-4 days and not to call in the police, which tells me the kidnapper had planned a quick and discrete "snatch and return," whether dead or alive, for the ransom money. Of course, all of that changed when Lindbergh opened the envelope and did call the police, which then meant the press and unprecedented world wide coverage. Once that happened, and the ante was upped, Hauptmann simply responded by adapting his method and playing along, showing the Lindbergh and now the world, he was every bit Lindbergh's equal, at least in his own mind. I see the shadow of someone else in this case within the planning, and being someone who was willing to participate as long as the plan was maintained but who essentially pulled out once the police were called in and things got too hot to handle. Hauptmann's willingness to see things through, knowing full well that he would be taking Lindbergh's money in return for a dead child, speaks volumes about the level of grim determination he was capable of summoning, which can also be seen within his multiple attempts to reach America as an escaped felon and under incredibly difficult circumstances. As for Fisch, I believe he was a willing participant in at least the laundering of ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2015 15:56:21 GMT -5
This was all about making "easy" money. All he had to do was follow instructions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2015 17:57:49 GMT -5
This was all about making "easy" money. All he had to do was follow instructions. Considering the nursery note demanded that Lindbergh not notify the police and that he even neglected to open the envelope, I'd have to think it was Lindbergh and not Hauptmann, who didn't follow the instructions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2015 18:49:57 GMT -5
Considering the nursery note demanded that Lindbergh not notify the police and that he even neglected to open the envelope, I'd have to think it was Lindbergh and not Hauptmann, who didn't follow the instructions. I think using the word "neglected" is a poor choice. He made sure it wasn't opened and that it remained on that window sill for 2 hours after he discovered it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2015 19:35:04 GMT -5
Considering the nursery note demanded that Lindbergh not notify the police and that he even neglected to open the envelope, I'd have to think it was Lindbergh and not Hauptmann, who didn't follow the instructions. I think using the word "neglected" is a poor choice. He made sure it wasn't opened and that it remained on that window sill for 2 hours after he discovered it. I was referring to what I think you're implying as a conspiracy in which Lindbergh would have been aware of what was taking place that evening. If that were truly the case, why would he not have opened the envelope and instead called in the Hopewell police, an action that was certain to open the floodgates of higher investigation and mass press coverage? Yes, he made sure no one touched what he correctly believed to have been a ransom note. Does that surprise you?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2015 21:33:08 GMT -5
I was referring to what I think you're implying as a conspiracy in which Lindbergh would have been aware of what was taking place that evening. If that were truly the case, why would he not have opened the envelope and instead called in the Hopewell police, an action that was certain to open the floodgates of higher investigation and mass press coverage? Yes, he made sure no one touched what he correctly believed to have been a ransom note. Does that surprise you? Knowing what I do it's hard to answer that question from a neutral position. However, I would respond by asking why he grabbed his gun then ran out of the house? My answer to that would be he was naturally trying to catch the culprits and find his son - like any Father would do. Yet, the note contains that information (as he obviously believes), so it makes no sense to me that he would immediately want his son back but willing to wait 2 hours before finding out the answer. What I see is someone playing both roles alternately when it's one or the other. Then once the note is opened he's back to leading the search party. He's an Aviator playing the role of what he believes would be a Cop, while also doing a really bad job at being a Parent who's son had just been kidnapped. He's trying to do both but failing miserably. And it doesn't go unnoticed by many who were there to witness it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2015 8:00:02 GMT -5
At the best of times, it's very difficult to tell how someone is going to react in such a stressful situation, unless you see it as less stressful because you have knowledge of what is going to happen. Lindbergh has been chastised over the years for his actions following the discovery of the empty crib. I don't believe he was knowledgeable in the least about what was going to happen on the night of the kidnapping.
I would also say that by immediately grabbing his gun, he was willing to meet the possibility of danger outside while intervening, if the kidnapper(s) were still in the area. After his years of barnstorming and Air Mail flying not to mention his famous flight, meeting danger through an almost instant recognition of the risk involved, was second nature to Charles Lindbergh. Regarding the unmarked envelope, I think it's safe to assume he understood fully it was a ransom note, but I would ask what benefit he would have perceived, by immediately opening the envelope when he came back into the nursery after realizing the kidnappers were gone. Surely he understood they would not be waiting for him at the edge of the estate for his response to their demands. He knew they were now out of his range of control, which I assume is why he immediately asked for Whateley to call the Hopewell police.
The perception that he failed miserably as a parent and makeshift investigator I think is only a judgment based firstly on an understanding of what took place and secondly, now having the hindsight luxury of critically and closely analyzing his actions. Personally, as a parent who has had to deal with emergency situations involving my own kids and who has reacted well and sometimes not so well, I really see nothing strange or suspicious within Lindbergh's actions. Regarding his taking control of the investigation, he obviously did not take full control as is often glamorized, rather he directed others based upon what I feel was a true desire to ensure the safe return of his son. Look at the dynamics here. You suddenly have a bunch of investigative authorities and a sea of investigators who are supposed to take control of many different aspects of the case, only which ones? Obviously the NJSP had legitimate lead jurisdiction, but you also had a Lindbergh worshiper in Col. Schwarzkopf and someone with a pretty checkered investigative career to that point. That is where the blame for Lindbergh's taking charge of so many of the details he was ill-preapred to, needs to be laid. Strictly focusing on Lindbergh's actions here is a bit like fighting the fire in the living room while it's actually in the kitchen.
While many investigators might have entertained some initial suspicions based on what they saw that night, I think most realized over time that what happened was unprecedented, and that nobody including Lindbergh was really prepared or trained to deal with it in the most effective and direct manner.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2015 16:12:17 GMT -5
At the best of times, it's very difficult to tell how someone is going to react in such a stressful situation, unless you see it as less stressful because you have knowledge of what is going to happen. Lindbergh has been chastised over the years for his actions following the discovery of the empty crib. I don't believe he was knowledgeable in the least about what was going to happen on the night of the kidnapping. You are absolutely right that stress can cause certain people to act differently than what we'd expect. However, that can only go so far and it cannot be invoked each and every time something looks suspicious. At some point red flags need to be looked at a little more closely. It's almost like it was illegal to even think it should have been done and is still treated that way today. As it concerns Lindbergh, the minute anyone points something out that should be researched further they become a target themselves. He's "off limits." He's not off limits to me. In fact, no one is. Approaching research from this perspective, and having a lot of time to spare to actually do it - that's a recipe for a whole lot of new material. There is a much information in just about every book that is accepted as historical fact when it never even happened. And then we have these same people telling us who's right or wrong about this or that. What's "silly" or what's "real" when the actual facts reveal they don't have a clue. I guess my point is to keep in mind what you may have read could be incorrect in some way. And if it is you could be basing your position on something that isn't accurate.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 30, 2015 19:07:33 GMT -5
While I've researched Nosovitsky quite extensively including the Marquette University collection, I've also forgotten a large part of what I learned. That's not necessarily because my memory is bad but because so much of the information just seemed to go nowhere in relation to the Lindbergh Case, so I guess it's become a bit out of sight and out of mind. I know Michael has gone into far more detail with Nosovitsky and I can accept his conclusion for now, that Behn's theory is really little more than that. Something though keeps drawing me back into Nosovitsky's circle despite the lack of hard evidence to conclude he was ever involved. Here are some points I've considered over the years, for potential discussion and these may or may not be totally accurate. This may seem a bit like a connect-the-dots exercise and as I say I can't confirm all of these as accurate, but perhaps we can just see how well they hold up on their own or in combination and where things lead.
1. During Condon's first meeting with Cemetery John at Woodlawn Cemetery, he was told by CJ that a high government official was the mastermind behind the kidnapping. There's good reason to be skeptical here as it's clear that CJ was simply telling Condon a lot of details that weren't true, and quite often the opposite to what turned out to be the truth. In spite of that, I've always felt there might be some truth interspersed among the lies and could this possibly be a reference to Nosovitsky's former government espionage role?
2. Noel Behn asserts in his book that Nosovitsky had a grudge over a lack of payment of $25,000 from the Morgan Bank, after he did some undercover work through his infiltration of the Mexican Communist Party. Behn then further implies the object of his intended revenge was the family of Dwight Morrow.
3. According to Montreal car salesman Alex Bulloch, he met a Jimmy Faulkner in Ste. Agathe, Quebec in the summer of 1932 and that Faulkner claimed he "made a cleanup in the States." Faulkner spent money very freely with $100 bills while incurring a lot of debt and finally left town broke a few months later. Coincidentally, he was spotted in New York in November 1935 by the manager of the same hotel he stayed at in Ste. Agathe three years earlier. Faulkner was also know to frequent the Ottawa Bridge Club in the winter of 1932-33. According to employees at both locations, he was a mysterious, dissipated man of between 36 and 40 and claimed to be looking for "something to do" in Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa, places which Nosvitsky was also known to visit. Bulloch claimed that the writing of Jimmy Faulkner and that seen in the 'JJ Faulkner Confessional Letter' could not be told apart. In any case, I don't believe Nosovitsky wrote the confessional letter as his handwriting is much more open-spaced and less refined in appearance. Still, I don't discount the possibility of it having been written by a female associate, the same one who may have also signed the JJ Faulkner deposit slip.
4. The potential connection between Nosovitsky and Duane (Bacon) Baker, who was the superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments until April of 1932. Baker was known to hold card games in the basement of the apartments. A dumbwaiter in the basement still showed the label 'Faulkner,' for former residents Jane Faulkner and her mother Jane who had lived there from 1916-1921. The choice of an alias name could possibly have been picked up or reinforced here if Nosovitsky had at any time been a part of these card games or had other reason to be there.
5. On the morning following the kidnapping, a Buick Brougham, owned by Benjamin Schindelar, which had previously been stolen, was discovered parked outside 515 West 149th St., which is just down the road from the Plymouth Apartments. A witness told police she saw a man leave the vehicle and walk towards Webster Ave.
6. Nosovitsky was involved in a tire selling scam in which loads of tires was delivered on credit and he simply defaulted on the loan from the tire manufacturer. J. Edgar Hoover, an acquaintance of Nosovitsky, had previously provided a positive letter of reference for Nosovitsky and so he was understandably upset once he realized he had been taken. From the Duane Baker Investigation report, I discovered Baker was also involved in the same type of tire selling scam.
7. According Patty Doyle, who is a cousin of John Condon from his mother's side, a Wally Stroh who served time with her uncle Dennis Doyle, claimed that Nosovitsky and Isidor Fisch knew each other from the fur business.
8. During the trial, defense lawyer Ed Reilly questioned Hauptmann about an apparent association with a man called Jimmy, who I believe also played the zither at some of Hauptmann's monthly Saturday evening music nights. What is unusual about the exchange is Reilly's seeming persistence within the line of questioning and Wilentz's somewhat agitated reaction with it. From this, I somehow felt Reilly was reminding Wilentz to 'play ball' of some kind, perhaps within the confines of a prior agreement over the potential culpability of others.
9. The connection between the signatures in the 'JJ Faulkner deposit slip' and the 'JJ Faulkner confessional letter' of jan. 1, 1936, was officially discounted in January, 1936 after Governor Hoffman received the letter. I don't rule out the possibility here of the two being from the same writer and believe there was enormous prosecutorial pressure then to maintain the official verdict. I feel there is a genuine tone of regret in the letter, a kind of New Year's atonement and that the author attempts to provide some relief for Haupmann by subtly implying his own involvement. At the time, it was believed by some that a woman wrote the letter and also that a woman signed the deposit slip. Perhaps a female accomplice of 'JJ Faulkner?'
10. J. Edgar Hoover would have been in a very embarrassing and potentially career-threatening predicament if Nosovitsky was found to be complicit in the Lindbergh Case, due to his past involvement with him in an official government capacity.
11. a lawsuit was filed by Nosovitsky against Condon for the latter's inference of Nosovitsky's involvement in the Lindbergh Case. I believe the ruling was in favour of Nosovitsky and that he dropped out of sight shortly after its conclusion and was not heard from again. Whether there was something sinister at play here seems open for speculation at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 22:08:30 GMT -5
4. The potential connection between Nosovitsky and Duane (Bacon) Baker, who was the superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments until April of 1932. Baker was known to hold card games in the basement of the apartments. A dumbwaiter in the basement still showed the label 'Faulkner,' for former residents Jane Faulkner and her mother Jane who had lived there from 1916-1921. The choice of an alias name could possibly have been picked up or reinforced here if Nosovitsky had at any time been a part of these card games or had other reason to be there. 5. On the morning following the kidnapping, a Buick Brougham, owned by Benjamin Schindelar, which had previously been stolen, was discovered parked outside 515 West 149th St., which is just down the road from the Plymouth Apartments. A witness told police she saw a man leave the vehicle and walk towards Webster Ave. Knowing who attended these card games would have been interesting to find out. Was Duane Baker ever questioned about these card games and who the players were? I think the Schindler Car is another interesting angle in this case. There was a woman who saw a man at this car and watched him walk away from it. Her description of him sounds like Duane Baker. Do you know what color the Buick was?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2015 6:46:46 GMT -5
Yes Amy, and it surprises me that there doesn't seem to be a list of card players that were investigated given the location of the 'Faulkner' dumbwaiter, as it seems almost anyone with the remotest of potential connection to this case was investigated thoroughly. One thing that interests me from the FBI Summary Report, is the name of one of the tradespeople that did work at the Plymouth Apartments and were known by Duane Baker. All are listed along with their occupations, except for the last one, a J.J. McKale, whose name appears without a trade listed. I know it was a pretty common set of initials, but it made me wonder if one of Nosovitsky's many aliases might have been JJ McKale. I haven't seen this one in Nosovitsky's list of aliases and perhaps someone can add something here.
I've seen a reference previously that Dorothy Stevens, the woman who saw the driver of the stolen Schindelar Buick Brougham leave the vehicle and walk towards Amsterdam Ave., not Webster Ave. as I previously said. Her description from the FBI Report doesn't really sound like Baker to me although I have seen a different description given in another source. That one may have been Joyce Milton who seemed to believe that Baker was a likely participant. I remember hearing that she softened that position in later years. The Buick Brougham was model year 1926 and I believe it might have been maroon as that rings a bell, just not sure. One other point is that the vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of the Pines hotel in Lakewood, NJ on Jan. 28, 1932, over a month before the kidnapping took place. That's a long time to have a stolen car which is going to be used in such a high profile crime, and vehicles are usually snatched much closer to the actual date of the deed. On the other hand, it might be a wise move, knowing that police attention over the theft would have died down after a few weeks or so and they would not have been actively looking for it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2015 6:58:52 GMT -5
Nor is Lindbergh off limits to me, but I have to say after all this time, he is a pretty poor suspect in my mind. I'd also have to think that if there was a conspiracy here and after over eighty years, that someone even remotely involved or someone who knew another who was, would have stepped forward by now to reveal some form of concrete evidence. If you have anything like that at all, I'm all ears and perhaps we'll have to wait for the book. But please just don't take another 15 years writing it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2015 16:08:43 GMT -5
Nor is Lindbergh off limits to me, but I have to say after all this time, he is a pretty poor suspect in my mind. I'd also have to think that if there was a conspiracy here and after over eighty years, that someone even remotely involved or someone who knew another who was, would have stepped forward by now to reveal some form of concrete evidence. If you have anything like that at all, I'm all ears and perhaps we'll have to wait for the book. But please just don't take another 15 years writing it! I'm glad to hear he's not Joe. It's important not to fall in love with one or more characters in this big play. You've provided the ultimate excuse for anything new that comes out: " If this was true then someone else would have found it already." But this too isn't true. If I didn't think I had enough new material for a book I surely wouldn't do one. Fact is, I have enough for 10 books. I had to wait for Richard's book to come out before I started one. This type of endeavor isn't easy for me, and the last thing I wanted to do was have a year invested in something that came out in Richard's book. I was actually hoping it did because it would have saved me a whole lot of work. Furthermore, I've learned quite a bit in this span - and it's very important. We've been at this for a long time, so I look back, say five years ago, and I realize I didn't know certain things then that I do now. So no, if something is true - someone else never finding it isn't relevant. And I know there's many who believe this case will never be solved, that it's too far removed... I say they're wrong too. I truly believe everything I have amounts to the solution. I can't see any way around it. Let's imagine for a second that I had a confession. What do you think the reaction would be? It depends on what the content would be doesn't it? Why is that? I am either a creditable source or I am not. Next, who would honestly be qualified to say I was lying or wrong without doing some serious research into it themselves? Anyway, I am working every chance I get and I am completely done researching. The next time I hit the Archives will be to scan a few pictures. I am quite confident in what I've found - most especially because no one else ever did. But honestly it did take every bit of 15 years of searching to find it all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2015 8:50:03 GMT -5
It's much more than an excuse really as the principle basically lays aside the pitfalls within the grounds of of the personal perception of information.
As far as putting into print the new information you have, I'm sure you know it will be subject to the same if not higher level of scrutiny that all conspiracies have had to endure to this point. I hope you will be fully revealing all of your sources as by doing so, it will allow researchers to follow the paths you have taken and develop their own conclusions, which seems only fair. Here, I think of Gardner's tendency for innuendo and for example, putting into print the assertion that Katy Fredericksen was having an affair, (might well have been true) and then not divulging the source. That's a big shoutout followed by a big copout and I can only trust your book will be far more objective in nature than his.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2015 9:21:11 GMT -5
As far as putting into print the new information you have, I'm sure you know it will be subject to the same if not higher level of scrutiny that all conspiracies have had to endure to this point. As it relates to this case I am sure of it. As it relates to any other Conspiracies I'd say not so much. Just look at Mark's book: The Siege at Jutland. It ruins any assertion by those who claim this stuff doesn't happen, and I've seen absolutely no rebuttal or even a comment to address it. www.amazon.com/The-Siege-Jutland-Mark-Falzini/dp/1491725079In the end I am hoping anyone who decides to read whatever the end result is will start looking at what I have found more closely. Both pros and cons and stop listening to people who have no idea what they are talking about. If any source puts something out that doesn't seem right then research, challenge, or compliment it based on what personal discoveries are found. I hope you will be fully revealing all of your sources as by doing so, it will allow researchers to follow the paths you have taken and develop their own conclusions, which seems only fair. Here, I think of Gardner's tendency for innuendo and for example, putting into print the assertion that Katy Fredericksen was having an affair, (might well have been true) and then not divulging the source. That's a big shoutout followed by a big copout and I can only trust your book will be far more objective in nature than his. I will be fully revealing all of my sources. Footnoting my material is a lengthy process which is a big reason this might take a minute. But frankly, most of those who pretend to know anything about this case have the biggest and loudest mouths but don't do any research at all so it won't really matter to them. They won't get off their couch to follow up on anything. But to defend Lloyd, sometimes things are revealed with the actual source asking to stay anonymous. It's at that point the Reader must decide whether or not to trust his source, as he himself trusts it enough to put in his book. I know the source and it's a good one, therefore, there is no question in my mind it's true. Regardless, I don't see it of having any particular significance anyway - but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 3, 2015 15:09:09 GMT -5
According to Noel Behn's book, Governor Hoffman, upon receipt of the JJ Faulkner letter, immediately had PI William Pelletreau, considered a competent forensic document examiner at the time, review it. Pelletreau reported back to the governor that the JJ Faulkner on the bank signature and the JJ Faulkner who wrote the letter were one and the same.
As far as the theory of a woman letter writer, I've been told by a friend who is a Certified Document Examiner that one cannot determine the gender of the writer of a specific handwriting specimen upon style characteristics of the handwriting alone. This statement may be counterintuitive to some, but is nonetheless true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 7:19:37 GMT -5
Michael, I came across this news article about a week or so ago and wanted to post it and ask you about it. This is from an August, 1938 edition of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The man mentioned in this article is being called "Jack Nasow", but when you read further into the article it certainly sounds like it is Nosovitsky they have in the hospital. He is under police guard. This supposed assault occurred during the time Noso's slander suit against Condon was being litigated. Do you know if this is really Nosovitsky in the hospital? bklyn.newspapers.com/image/52764844/?terms=J.J.+Faulkner
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2015 8:20:07 GMT -5
Yes that's him. "Nosaw" and "Nasow" were both more aliases he's used. There was some thought that he did this to himself for publicity, or other personal gain somehow. I can't say if that was true or not.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2015 16:51:15 GMT -5
To Michael and amy35:
Totally agree that the victim of the beating is Nosovitsky. Excellent find! Picked up in the Bronx by some underworld goons and taken to Borough Park, Brooklyn? We know that he had previous connections to both places! And we do know that considering his shady line of "work," and considering the strength of organized crime in NYC during that era, this "message" from the mob would hardly be surprising. It could have been connected to the suit against Condon, but then again probably not. This seems to be the last anyone had heard of Noso.
Naturally, the police immediately denied he was "J. J. Faulkner," because, according to the official line at that point, Hauptmann had did it all and was justly put to death. No law enforcement agency would dare say anything that opened up the possibility that anyone else was involved in the Lindbergh crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:47:26 GMT -5
To Michael and amy35: Totally agree that the victim of the beating is Nosovitsky. Excellent find! Picked up in the Bronx by some underworld goons and taken to Borough Park, Brooklyn? We know that he had previous connections to both places! And we do know that considering his shady line of "work," and considering the strength of organized crime in NYC during that era, this "message" from the mob would hardly be surprising. It could have been connected to the suit against Condon, but then again probably not. This seems to be the last anyone had heard of Noso. Naturally, the police immediately denied he was "J. J. Faulkner," because, according to the official line at that point, Hauptmann had did it all and was justly put to death. No law enforcement agency would dare say anything that opened up the possibility that anyone else was involved in the Lindbergh crime. I still wonder if the beating wasn't somehow connected to the Lindbergh case. Like you say, there could not be anything that would open up the possibility of others being involved. All Pelletreau's work was stirring that up. Plus Condon was saying Noso was J.J. Faulkner. The pot was getting stirred. There is also the possibility Noso was working another forgery scam and some people were unhappy with him. We will never really know why he was attacked. I have not been able to find anything else on Nosovitsky after this article but I will keep looking. Maybe, since he was in the hands of the authorities at this time, he was quietly deported.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2015 20:54:27 GMT -5
When you say "deported," it sounds like he was a foreign national. But I think there's a good chance he was a naturalized American citizen by 1938. Still, he could have left the US for good on his own, possibly to Canada where he had connections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 21:31:35 GMT -5
When you say "deported," it sounds like he was a foreign national. But I think there's a good chance he was a naturalized American citizen by 1938. Still, he could have left the US for good on his own, possibly to Canada where he had connections. I used "deported" because I was not aware that he became a naturalized citizen. Do you know when he received that status? I agree that Canada would be a good option for him. I know that at one time he had a wife in Canada. Have you ever heard of Noso using the alias "Falconi"
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2015 23:28:51 GMT -5
Don't know specifically about Noso's citizenship status. Was merely speculating. Seems like he was in the US long enough to apply if he wished.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2015 23:38:33 GMT -5
Not specifically, but he did use "Faulkner," as documented by Behn's review of NYPD files. So since the name Faulkner means "falconer" and he did use an awful lot of aliases, I'd hardly be surprised if he also used "Falconi," since "Falcone" (pronounced the same) would mean "falcon" in Italian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 8:17:25 GMT -5
Not specifically, but he did use "Faulkner," as documented by Behn's review of NYPD files. So since the name Faulkner means "falconer" and he did use an awful lot of aliases, I'd hardly be surprised if he also used "Falconi," since "Falcone" (pronounced the same) would mean "falcon" in Italian. Interesting! The reason I brought up the use of Falconi is because of what I read in another book on the Lindbergh case titled "In Search of the Lindbergh Baby" by Theon Wright. On page 114 (paperback) of this book he talks about J.J. Faulkner. He says that J.J. Faulkner was an alias for a man named Falconi, who was into drug running. He says this Falconi man was from New Orleans and moved drugs up the coast to New York. I have never read anything about Noso being involved with drug selling. Since you explain how one name means the other, then both names are probably aliases for one man. I suppose it is possible more than one person could have used these names as aliases. I read through Behn's list of aliases Noso used and I don't see anything that sounds Italian in that list. So maybe there is no connection. Thanks for sharing your insight!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 12, 2015 9:45:19 GMT -5
I'd be quite sure that this Falconi, given his ethnicity, geographical location, and occupation, was an organized crime figure. New Orleans was a big Sicilian mob town from back in the 1880s, considered by historians to be the first American city with that "distinction." Wonder what drug was popular to smuggle in the late 1930s, once organized crime lost its foothold in booze with the end of Prohibition.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Aug 22, 2015 19:39:35 GMT -5
For what it is worth, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics "Black Book" on the mafia refers to two brothers named Falcone who operated in the Utica-Rome, New York, area. They were believed to be involved in international drug trafficking. Both brothers attended the 1957 Apalachin conference.
Salvatore Falcone was born in 1891 in Sicily, was 5'6". 180 lbs, heavy build, brown eyes.
Joe Falcone was born in 1902 in Sicily, was 5'5", 160 lbs, brown eyes.
No mention of a connection to New Orleans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 20:33:33 GMT -5
Feathers, Thank you for the information on the Falcone brothers. The book I read where Falcone is mentioned attaches him to New Orleans which is obviously not correct. I think that writer should have done a little more research for his book. Can I ask you about another underworld figure. His name is John (Chink) Goodman. Goodman was found dead in Philadelphia in 1941. The caption to the picture claims he had Lindbergh ransom money on him at the time of his death. I don't know if the money was ever checked since authorities had stopped doing that years before this man died. The caption ties him to the Philadelphia area. Would you know anything about him and whether he might have been involved with any illegal activities in NJ in the 1930's? Here is a link to his picture and the caption information: news.google.com/newspapers?id=bpshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DZgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5581%2C1525808
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 25, 2015 16:57:39 GMT -5
To amy35 and feathers:
Back in 2008 on the first page of this thread, dena posted that, according to the 1900 census, an Italian immigrant named Emilio Falconi was living at the same address as the family then headed by John F. Condon's mother. Remember that the names "Falconi" (or more commonly, "Falcone" in Italian, meaning "falcon") and "Faulkner" (derived from the German meaning "falconer") have similar meanings.
Whether or not this has any meaning to the Lindbergh case, or is merely a coincidence, is anyone's guess.
|
|