|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2017 19:33:00 GMT -5
Siglinde (a good friend of mine and a fellow researcher) recently shared a discovery she has made. It is very interesting and I just don't what to make of it so she's unselfishly given me the green light to share it here... She was going through the various NYC directories and saw that in the 1916 through the 1920 years that Condon's former pupil, "Jas. J. Faulkner" of Balcom Avenue, was listed directly above "Jane Faulkner" of 537 W. 149th. The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Examples below are 1917 and 1918:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 29, 2017 23:36:09 GMT -5
Interesting. If a James J. Faulkner was a student of Condon's, then could it be that he was the one who approached Condon and asked him to be a go-between? Could this James J. Faulkner have been CJ? If we know James J. Faulkner was a student of Condon's, do we know anything more about him?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 4:49:46 GMT -5
Siglinde (a good friend of mine and a fellow researcher) recently shared a discovery she has made. It is very interesting and I just don't what to make of it so she's unselfishly given me the green light to share it here... She was going through the various NYC directories and saw that in the 1916 through the 1920 years that Condon's former pupil, "Jas. J. Faulkner" of Balcom Avenue, was listed directly above "Jane Faulkner" of 537 W. 149th. The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Examples below are 1917 and 1918: Interesting theory and I'm wondering what would cause someone, who knew what the notes were, to use their own names, especially when the address was not correct. I didnt know Condon had a student named JJ Faulkner.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2017 5:42:22 GMT -5
From Siglinde:
Jas. J. was the uncle who raised JJ, Jafsie's pupil. JJ was living with Jas. J., the uncle, and Isabella, the aunt, at the 1336 Balcom Ave address. He was a juvenile delinquent who had burglarized his uncle and aunt's home.
The main thing is to point out that the Plymouth Apts. address, i.e. that on the deposit slip, and that of Jafsie's pupil are listed side by side each time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 17:16:05 GMT -5
The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Interesting theory. Going with this thought, wouldn't the deposit slip author have needed access to old NYC directories to find these listings? Or perhaps know someone who did have old directories around or worked someplace where there might have been such directories. There is always the public library as a possible source for the old directories. Then choosing the specific name of Faulkner and using the female entry for the address. Perhaps the deposit slip author was a woman.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 30, 2017 19:56:40 GMT -5
Michael, how old would JJ have been at the time of the kidnapping? Did LE ever investigate him given his connection to Condon?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2017 7:09:52 GMT -5
Michael, how old would JJ have been at the time of the kidnapping? Did LE ever investigate him given his connection to Condon? He was born on January 18, 1900. I am not exactly sure what Siglinde's position is at the moment but I believe he became a NYC Cop and was interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 8:36:23 GMT -5
The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Interesting theory. Going with this thought, wouldn't the deposit slip author have needed access to old NYC directories to find these listings? Or perhaps know someone who did have old directories around or worked someplace where there might have been such directories. There is always the public library as a possible source for the old directories. Then choosing the specific name of Faulkner and using the female entry for the address. Perhaps the deposit slip author was a woman. Interesting thought Amy. It could have been a woman. I've always thought it was Nostovsky. Still wasn't there a connection to Faulkner and a son-in-law of Condon or am I thinking of someone else ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2017 10:57:06 GMT -5
Interesting thought Amy. It could have been a woman. I've always thought it was Nostovsky. Still wasn't there a connection to Faulkner and a son-in-law of Condon or am I thinking of someone else ? So I have been burning the midnight candle on this whole Faulkner deposit slip/Old directory entries theory. According the the directory entries, Jane is the widow of a James Faulkner. So maybe the JJ Faulkner actually stands for James and Jane Faulkner. This Jane Faulkner would remarry in 1921 to Carl O. Giessler. John J. Faulkner, Condon's student, was the nephew of a James Faulkner who lived on Balcom Ave. behind St. Raymonds Cemetery. John J. can be found living with his Uncle James in the 1910 Federal Census and is 10 years old. John J. is part of the 1920 census living with his Uncle James on Balcom Ave. also. John J. is 20 at this time. The interesting thing that comes up in this is that Uncle James Faulkner has a daughter named Jane (also called Jennie) who is John J.'s cousin. We are dealing with a lot of J.J. Faulkners, both male and female. So why does the depositor of the ransom money select the widow Jane Faulkner's address when filling out that deposit slip? Well, perhaps that depositor did know Jane Faulkner when she lived at 537 W. 149th Street and had also lived at the same apartment building at some time. This person would not need the old directories to look up that address. Or is that address being used to purposely misdirect any investigation that might occur because of that deposit away from making any connection to the Balcom Avenue family?? No matter how that name and address was chosen, I don't think it was random. According to the 1930 and 1940 census info John J. Faulkner was a patrolman, was married to a teacher and lived in Queens, New York.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 11:04:19 GMT -5
Interesting thought Amy. It could have been a woman. I've always thought it was Nostovsky. Still wasn't there a connection to Faulkner and a son-in-law of Condon or am I thinking of someone else ? So I have been burning the midnight candle on this whole Faulkner deposit slip/Old directory enteries theory. According the the directory entries, Jane is the widow of a James Faulkner. So maybe the JJ Faulkner actually stands for James and Jane Faulkner. This Jane Faulkner would remarry in 1921 to Carl O. Giessler. John J. Faulkner, Condon's student, was the nephew of a James Faulkner who lived on Balcom Ave. behind St. Raymonds Cemetery. John J. can be found living with his Uncle James in the 1910 Federal Census and is 10 years old. John J. is part of the 1920 census living with his Uncle James on Balcom Ave. also. John J. is 20 at this time. The interesting thing that comes up in this is that Uncle James Faulkner has a daughter named Jane (also called Jennie) who is John J.'s cousin. We are dealing with a lot of J.J. Faulkners, both male and female. So why does the depositor of the ransom money select the widow Jane Faulkner's address when filling out that deposit slip? Well, perhaps that depositor did know Jane Faulkner when she lived at 537 W. 149th Street and had also lived at the same apartment building at some time. This person would not need the old directories to look up that address. Or is that address being used to purposely misdirect any investigation that might occur because of that deposit away from making any connection to the Balcom Avenue family?? No matter how that name and address was chosen, I don't think it was random. According to the 1930 and 1940 census info John J. Faulkner was a patrolman, was married to a teacher and lived in Queens, New York. Wow Amy! That is good stuf!! I don't think it's a coincidence either. It's Carl O. Giessler im thinking of...ill be looking that up right now. Thanks for this great response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 9:08:37 GMT -5
It's Carl O. Giessler im thinking of...ill be looking that up right now. I wanted to correct something from my previous post. Jane Faulkner's marriage to Carl Giessler was her first marriage at the age of 37. The directory entry listing Jane Faulkner as a widow must represent Jane's mother who had was living there also. This whole Faulkner aspect is very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Jul 23, 2017 18:09:13 GMT -5
The Queens patrolman you mention, Amy, could not have been Jafsie's student, as he was born on Feb. 9, 1900, based on his birth and marriage certificates, while Jafsie's student was born on Jan. 19, 1900.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2017 22:27:56 GMT -5
The Queens patrolman you mention, Amy, could not have been Jafsie's student, as he was born on Feb. 9, 1900, based on his birth and marriage certificates, while Jafsie's student was born on Jan. 19, 1900. Thanks for mentioning this! I did some checking on this and the John Faulkner born on Jan. 19, 1900 is not the John J. Faulkner that resided on Balcom Ave in the Bronx. The John Faulkner born Jan 19, 1900 resided at 815 Sterling Place, Brooklyn New York at the time of the 1920 Federal census. He was an office clerk. Jafsie's John Faulkner lived at 1336 Balcom Ave. in the 1920 census and worked as a railroad brakeman. I believe he went on to become a New York police officer.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 24, 2017 17:18:59 GMT -5
I still do. Remember that Nosovitsky knew Condon before the LKC through serving prison time with Condon's relative "Dinny" Doyle.
According to Noel Behn, Nosovitsky's New York police record lists one of his numerous aliases as "J. J. Faulkner." This is, of course, consistent with the theory of this tread, i. e., that Noso, as "J. J. Faulkner," could have looked up the real Faulkner's address in an old telephone directory and used it on the deposit slip.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Aug 27, 2017 7:33:04 GMT -5
About 1891 – we don’t know the exact date – John Faughnan left his homeland, his parents Thomas and Bridget, sisters Maggie and Jane. Like any other emigrant, no doubt he felt the mixture of dread and excitement of what laid ahead and the sadness of leaving Cloontagh and Briskil Bridge, the Co Longford townlands where he had been raised as a farmer’s son. For this new adventure, John would take on a new name. He would follow the lead of his uncle John, who in the leaving of Ireland took a new name for a new world. Uncle John had passed that name down to his own sons. And now his nephew John would follow suit. In America, John Faughnan would become John Faulkner.
John headed to Brooklyn, where his uncle was already well-established as a horseshoer in a close-knit Irish community in Greenpoint. There were plenty of other Faulkner family members, including James and Edward who were born in New York and could guide their Irish cousin. By 1897, John was a policeman and married to Annie Walsh, an Englishwoman. The relationship of the young couple was bookended by two tragedies. In 1898, their firstborn, Annie, died followed a mere handful of years later by Annie herself in 1905. In between, they had a son (born January 19, 1900) and another daughter, Florence (born 1901). John, perhaps unable to cope with the demands of two small children and a life in the NYPD, turned to his sister Lizzie and her husband Patrick McAuliffe for help. John would live with them in Brooklyn for nearly 10 years, the children for much longer, Florence and the son that John and Annie had named John Faulkner.
As John’s life was progressing through hard times in Brooklyn, his cousin Edward’s was following a similar path. He too had found a bride, Mary Sullivan, and they had a son in 1900, on February 9, born just 21 days after his second cousin. For synchronicity, lack of imagination or in tribute they named him John Joseph Faulkner. In 1904, it seems Mary died and Edward disappeared from the scene. Another motherless John Faulkner went to live with an aunt and uncle, this time Edward’s brother, James, and his wife Isabella. In time, James and Isabella would move their growing family, including their nephew JJ Faulkner, to a large house on high ground at 1336 Balcom Avenue in the Bronx. Its elevated position afforded views to the south, along Balcom and past Waterbury Avenue into the expanse of St Raymond’s cemetery.
The lives of these two John Faulkners of the same family progressed in relative prosperity in different boroughs of New York City. How much they knew or saw of each other is difficult to know. They were connected by name, by the proximity of their birth, by blood and by the loss of motherly love before they even understood what it was to have it. But they went to school; they remained with their respective aunts and uncles. At P.S. 12, John of Balcom Ave became a pupil of a veteran of the Bronx school system, John F Condon.
John Faulkner Snr, still in Brooklyn, continued as an NYPD patrolman. Cousin James in the Bronx worked as a special agent on the railway, later his son-in-law would be a cemetery guard. Despite these good examples of law and order around him, John of Balcom Ave strayed from the good path. In 1915, he was removed from school and sent to the Catholic Protectory on a charge of breaking into his aunt and uncle’s house.
And then, in 1918, whether the lives of these two young men were connected or not, external events brought about an intersection. It was precipitated by the entry of the US into WW1 and the need for John of Balcom Ave to register for the draft. Register he did, giving his Balcom address and naming his aunt Isabella as his next of kin. But under date of birth, instead of giving the correct February 9, 1900 he co-opted the date of birth of his Brooklyn second cousin, entering January 19, 1900. Aside from the draft card, there seems to be no record that John of Balcom served but his second cousin did, spending nearly 18 months in France.
In the 1920s, their lives, however close they may or may not once have been, diverged. Balcom John had been a railway brakeman and his second cousin an office clerk but they both had periods of unemployment. In 1922, Balcom John married Anna Buckley, a Scottish woman. In an echo of the tragedy of his own mother, she would die only three years later, the young couple childless. Sometime in 1926 or early 1927, Brooklyn John moved to Georgia where in April, 1927 he married Mabel Powell. He worked as a store clerk and on a dairy farm and in 1932 he and Mabel had a daughter, Doris. Meanwhile, his second cousin put aside whatever lingering impact there may have been of his teenage crime and became a NYC policeman before marrying for a second time, to Lucy Hoar, in 1929. They went on to have three children together.
The marriage in Georgia didn’t last and John seemed to drift from job to job with periods of unemployment. But he stayed in Georgia, perhaps because he had nowhere else to go, and died there in 1980. Balcom John moved with his new family to Queens and remained an NYPD patrolman. In a 1954 social security application, he again used the date of birth of his cousin rather than his own. As a result that incorrect date was recorded on the death index when he died in 1967.
So, what, if anything, is the value of this story? Of course, on May 1, 1933 $2,980 in Lindbergh ransom money was exchanged at the Federal Reserve in NYC. The deposit was traced to a slip bearing the name (and perhaps signature) of a JJ Faulkner of 537 West 149 Street. Despite an exhaustive investigation of residents past and present at that address and in particular the family of former resident Jane Faulkner, no connection was made between a JJ Faulkner and 537 W 149.
The investigation extended to all JJ Faulkners in NYC. In order to gather such a list, the authorities consulted the city directories, amongst other sources. What went uncommented – but perhaps not unnoticed – was that in 6 city directories from 1913 to 1920, the entry for the Jane Faulkner of the Plymouth Apartments is directly below that of JJ (James J) Faulkner of Balcom Ave. So was there a connection? Did someone combine these elements or are the intersections with multiple JJ Faulkners, with Condon, with St Ray’s merely coincidences?
What would answer the question is the corresponding exhaustive investigation of the Faughnan / Faulkner family as was conducted of the Jane Faulkner family. But there is no such investigation. There is a small number of reports referring to John the former pupil of Condon who was then a policemen, apparently ruling him out as a suspect but without revealing why (though Michael may know better on this point). There is also a suggestion of some investigation of the John in Georgia, a scrap of paper supposedly of his handwriting which eliminated him and with a strange notation referring to Lizzie McAuliffe as his guardian. But Lizzie had died in 1931.
This leaves us with the mystery of why there was so little investigation or at least the mystery of why there is no remaining evidence of an investigation. It certainly seems at odds with the frenzy, the arguable hounding to suicide of Leipold, which attended the Jane Faulkner investigation. It leaves unanswered what else there was to learn about this family, their connection to Condon and to St Ray’s.
And, finally, there is the question of the date of birth swap. Given it happened 14 years before the kidnapping it can’t be said to be related. But it was a swap which was persisted by Balcom John. Perhaps it was an early attempt at identity theft to put his crime behind him and clear the way for his future life in the police.
The documents supporting all of this are available online at the usual family history sites or I can post relevant ones here if anyone needs them. The bulk of this research is by Siglinde R, who knows and understands more about this case than I could ever possibly hope to emulate, and who asked me to post the results of our debate on these points here.
Cheers
Rab
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 27, 2017 14:01:55 GMT -5
About 1891 – we don’t know the exact date – John Faughnan left his homeland, his parents Thomas and Bridget, sisters Maggie and Jane. Like any other emigrant, no doubt he felt the mixture of dread and excitement of what laid ahead and the sadness of leaving Cloontagh and Briskil Bridge, the Co Longford townlands where he had been raised as a farmer’s son. For this new adventure, John would take on a new name. He would follow the lead of his uncle John, who in the leaving of Ireland took a new name for a new world. Uncle John had passed that name down to his own sons. And now his nephew John would follow suit. In America, John Faughnan would become John Faulkner. John headed to Brooklyn, where his uncle was already well-established as a horseshoer in a close-knit Irish community in Greenpoint. There were plenty of other Faulkner family members, including James and Edward who were born in New York and could guide their Irish cousin. By 1897, John was a policeman and married to Annie Walsh, an Englishwoman. The relationship of the young couple was bookended by two tragedies. In 1898, their firstborn, Annie, died followed a mere handful of years later by Annie herself in 1905. In between, they had a son (born January 19, 1900) and another daughter, Florence (born 1901). John, perhaps unable to cope with the demands of two small children and a life in the NYPD, turned to his sister Lizzie and her husband Patrick McAuliffe for help. John would live with them in Brooklyn for nearly 10 years, the children for much longer, Florence and the son that John and Annie had named John Faulkner. As John’s life was progressing through hard times in Brooklyn, his cousin Edward’s was following a similar path. He too had found a bride, Mary Sullivan, and they had a son in 1900, on February 9, born just 21 days after his second cousin. For synchronicity, lack of imagination or in tribute they named him John Joseph Faulkner. In 1904, it seems Mary died and Edward disappeared from the scene. Another motherless John Faulkner went to live with an aunt and uncle, this time Edward’s brother, James, and his wife Isabella. In time, James and Isabella would move their growing family, including their nephew JJ Faulkner, to a large house on high ground at 1336 Balcom Avenue in the Bronx. Its elevated position afforded views to the south, along Balcom and past Waterbury Avenue into the expanse of St Raymond’s cemetery. The lives of these two John Faulkners of the same family progressed in relative prosperity in different boroughs of New York City. How much they knew or saw of each other is difficult to know. They were connected by name, by the proximity of their birth, by blood and by the loss of motherly love before they even understood what it was to have it. But they went to school; they remained with their respective aunts and uncles. At P.S. 12, John of Balcom Ave became a pupil of a veteran of the Bronx school system, John F Condon. John Faulkner Snr, still in Brooklyn, continued as an NYPD patrolman. Cousin James in the Bronx worked as a special agent on the railway, later his son-in-law would be a cemetery guard. Despite these good examples of law and order around him, John of Balcom Ave strayed from the good path. In 1915, he was removed from school and sent to the Catholic Protectory on a charge of breaking into his aunt and uncle’s house. And then, in 1918, whether the lives of these two young men were connected or not, external events brought about an intersection. It was precipitated by the entry of the US into WW1 and the need for John of Balcom Ave to register for the draft. Register he did, giving his Balcom address and naming his aunt Isabella as his next of kin. But under date of birth, instead of giving the correct February 9, 1900 he co-opted the date of birth of his Brooklyn second cousin, entering January 19, 1900. Aside from the draft card, there seems to be no record that John of Balcom served but his second cousin did, spending nearly 18 months in France. In the 1920s, their lives, however close they may or may not once have been, diverged. Balcom John had been a railway brakeman and his second cousin an office clerk but they both had periods of unemployment. In 1922, Balcom John married Anna Buckley, a Scottish woman. In an echo of the tragedy of his own mother, she would die only three years later, the young couple childless. Sometime in 1926 or early 1927, Brooklyn John moved to Georgia where in April, 1927 he married Mabel Powell. He worked as a store clerk and on a dairy farm and in 1932 he and Mabel had a daughter, Doris. Meanwhile, his second cousin put aside whatever lingering impact there may have been of his teenage crime and became a NYC policeman before marrying for a second time, to Lucy Hoar, in 1929. They went on to have three children together. The marriage in Georgia didn’t last and John seemed to drift from job to job with periods of unemployment. But he stayed in Georgia, perhaps because he had nowhere else to go, and died there in 1980. Balcom John moved with his new family to Queens and remained an NYPD patrolman. In a 1954 social security application, he again used the date of birth of his cousin rather than his own. As a result that incorrect date was recorded on the death index when he died in 1967. So, what, if anything, is the value of this story? Of course, on May 1, 1933 $2,980 in Lindbergh ransom money was exchanged at the Federal Reserve in NYC. The deposit was traced to a slip bearing the name (and perhaps signature) of a JJ Faulkner of 537 West 149 Street. Despite an exhaustive investigation of residents past and present at that address and in particular the family of former resident Jane Faulkner, no connection was made between a JJ Faulkner and 537 W 149. The investigation extended to all JJ Faulkners in NYC. In order to gather such a list, the authorities consulted the city directories, amongst other sources. What went uncommented – but perhaps not unnoticed – was that in 6 city directories from 1913 to 1920, the entry for the Jane Faulkner of the Plymouth Apartments is directly below that of JJ (James J) Faulkner of Balcom Ave. So was there a connection? Did someone combine these elements or are the intersections with multiple JJ Faulkners, with Condon, with St Ray’s merely coincidences? What would answer the question is the corresponding exhaustive investigation of the Faughnan / Faulkner family as was conducted of the Jane Faulkner family. But there is no such investigation. There is a small number of reports referring to John the former pupil of Condon who was then a policemen, apparently ruling him out as a suspect but without revealing why (though Michael may know better on this point). There is also a suggestion of some investigation of the John in Georgia, a scrap of paper supposedly of his handwriting which eliminated him and with a strange notation referring to Lizzie McAuliffe as his guardian. But Lizzie had died in 1931. This leaves us with the mystery of why there was so little investigation or at least the mystery of why there is no remaining evidence of an investigation. It certainly seems at odds with the frenzy, the arguable hounding to suicide of Leipold, which attended the Jane Faulkner investigation. It leaves unanswered what else there was to learn about this family, their connection to Condon and to St Ray’s. And, finally, there is the question of the date of birth swap. Given it happened 14 years before the kidnapping it can’t be said to be related. But it was a swap which was persisted by Balcom John. Perhaps it was an early attempt at identity theft to put his crime behind him and clear the way for his future life in the police. The documents supporting all of this are available online at the usual family history sites or I can post relevant ones here if anyone needs them. The bulk of this research is by Siglinde R, who knows and understands more about this case than I could ever possibly hope to emulate, and who asked me to post the results of our debate on these points here. Cheers Rab Rab, I'm sure that must of us (including myself) appreciate the mountain of genealogical work you did on these two second cousins, the J. J. Faulkners. But you do you really think that someone who knew he was depositing "dirty money" would use his real name on the deposit slip, even with initials? Please read the post I put up in July, directly above yours in this thread. I think it's quite probable that Noel Behn solved the mystery of who was "J. J. Faulkner" - both the "J. J. Faulkner" of the deposit slip and the "J. J. Faulkner" who later wrote to the New York Daily News in an attempt to vindicate Bruno Richard Hauptmann months before Hauptmann's execution. Behn states that a handwriting expert used by Governor Hoffman concluded that both of these writers were one and the same: Jacob Nosovitsky. Behn further states that he looked at Nosovitsky's many aliases in his New York Police Dept. file, and that "J. J. Faulkner" was one of them. From my take on this, assuming Behn was accurate and honest, it would appear that the "J. J. Faulkner" writer on both documents was JACOB NOSOVITSKY. As you may be aware, Nosovitsky knew Condon before March 1, 1932, so could have known of the name "J. J. Faulkner" from him and Nosovitsky could have been the person who looked up Jane Faulkner's address in the old city directory and used it on the deposit slip. A real sleazy and cunning character, that's what Noso was to those who knew him.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Aug 27, 2017 15:04:41 GMT -5
I didn't say I thought anyone had used their real name, I'm not personally suggesting either of the cousins were involved. But I do think it more than coincidence that the two addresses were listed together in the directories. The choice therefore of the name and address for the payslip (a different name and a different address which don't fully match unless you see both together) seems to be meaningful to somebody, in some way. Who is it meaningful to and why?
The second question of substance is why there is no investigation - or record of one - of the cousins when we see the lengths gone to with Jane Faulkner's family. My personal supposition is that the papers were sucked up into the Hoffman review and then lost but there are other explanations e.g. they just didn't want to go there. It is one of those mysteries of the case, the seeming lack of investigation of certain things when compared to others. Another example, compare the multi-year, excruciatingly detailed search for the lumber yard which supplied parts of the ladder to the complete absence of a single report trying to trace the circumstances in which the sleeping suit was mailed to Condon.
On Behn, I don't dismiss everything he says because he often cites sources accurately. But the claims he makes about Nosovitsky being Faulkner don't add up and he provides no proof.
To the naked eye it's clear that the name (I'm not sure I would call it a signature) on the payslip and the signature on the letter to Hoffman are not the same (both are reproduced in Haring's book). The payslip had appeared in some newspapers at the time of the trial though it's debatable how widely publicised it was. But it was in the public domain and the letter itself has no content which supports the view that the author has any intimate or unpublished knowledge of the case, there is nothing to establish authenticity, any member of the public could have written it.
Behn's source that Nosovitsky's handwriting matched the Faulkner letter is the same source that says Nosovitsky wrote most of the ransom letters, a claim that is nonsense on its face, again one only needs the naked eye.
And the clincher in the book that Behn personally saw Nosovitsky's NYPD file is very convenient but nobody else has ever seen it and he's never provided any proof. So I don't personally believe it, the claim is too fantastical without anything to back it up. But I do agree Nosovitsky is a fascinating subject, just not one that any of my personal research on him has found to have any connection to the case.
Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 11:11:36 GMT -5
I didn't say I thought anyone had used their real name, I'm not personally suggesting either of the cousins were involved. But I do think it more than coincidence that the two addresses were listed together in the directories. The choice therefore of the name and address for the payslip (a different name and a different address which don't fully match unless you see both together) seems to be meaningful to somebody, in some way. Who is it meaningful to and why? Rab It is so awesome to see you post something again, Rab. The listing of the two addresses seem logical to me. The names appear to be organized in alphabetical order according to first names under the surname heading, so James would come before Jane. Thinking about this, in order for this listing to have significance, the person who was going to fill out that deposit slip had to have already known the name Faulkner and decided to use it(unless the person was attached to the name to begin with). Mixing the two listings together, using the Jane Faulkner address purposely, this person might have realized that the authorities would put the emphasis of their investigation on that address and anyone who was attached to it, hence the extreme effort by the police to connect the Faulkner/Giessler families to the kidnapping. Balcom John was now a police officer, so he was home free. No one was going to try at attach him to the kidnapping! I think who ever filled out that deposit slip knew all this. The investigation is being misdirected on purpose. I will admit, I did look at Balcom John as being a person of interest. Once I learned he was a former pupil of Condon's and had become a police officer, I thought about the ransom note that Condon received at his home the night of the payoff. In that note it said "Don't speak to anyone on the way. If there is a radio alarm for policecar, we warn you, we have the same eqipnent." Made me wonder if he had an assistance role of some sort. I also thought about the fact that Balcom John was renting an apartment in 1930 but owned his own home, outright, by 1935. Maybe that 1933, $2,980 deposit of gold certs helped make that happen?? All the research you posted was awesome. I have heard of Siglinde R. who has taken on legendary proportions in my mind. I now see how accurate my thinking is! I have not traced out these men to the level that has been done by Siglinde and you. I would be interested in any link you can post to the info on Brooklyn John. I have not researched him out beyond the 1920 federal census because my interest was focused on Balcom John. Thanks for anything you can share! Amy
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Aug 28, 2017 15:11:32 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Thanks, it's nice to be posting again and to see that the case remains present in so many people's minds. I think you're right that if the different name and address were deliberately chosen that it's the name which is meaningful rather than the address i.e. it was someone who knew that family. The choice of the name just doesn't feel random to me any longer, though it is what I used to believe. Siglinde and I did an experiment a few years ago of trying to match random common surnames to random addresses in New York City and it's not easy. So it's either a real long-shot coincidence or someone chose the name. The question that arises is why? Most of the gold note exchanges at banks at this time didn't require a deposit slip. This doesn't feel like a name and address combination someone would make up on the fly so therefore it was prepared. If it was Hauptmann who made the exchange (and I believe he benefited from the Faulkner exchange, he made a deposit of $2,575 of no obvious other source to his account at Steiner Rouse just two days later) then Faulkner seems a very Anglo choice for him. So it implies not Hauptmann but someone who fitted the name and who came prepared even though such preparation was generally unnecessary. I too have thought about that reference in the ransom note, whether bluff or some grain of truth. Certainly elements of the crime overall would imply some law enforcement knowledge. This has always been a source of debate in my own mind, the extent to which the crime was both planned and unplanned. You can find all of the census and other records on the Family Search website, try this link for starters. I'm attaching the 1900 census from the short time that Brooklyn JJ was with both his parents. After that he's consistently with the McAuliffes. I'm also attaching - courtesy of Siglinde - his birth certificate as well as the draft card of Balcom JJ with the borrowed date of birth. One of the many unknowns is what happened to Edward, father of Balcom JJ. He must have had an effect on JJ because he named his son for him but the record suggests he wasn't in his life. There is a death record for an Edward Faulkner, who had been married to a Mary Faulkner with the right range of birth year. The death record is for a black man, though having looked at many of these records they are often wrong on such facts. So maybe it's him, maybe not. That Edward died April 1, 1933, just a month before the exchange. Rab Brooklyn JJ Faulkners Birth Certificate.pdf (101.18 KB) Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 9:22:01 GMT -5
You can find all of the census and other records on the Family Search website. I'm attaching the 1900 census from the short time that Brooklyn JJ was with both his parents. After that he's consistently with the McAuliffes. I'm also attaching - courtesy of Siglinde - his birth certificate as well as the draft card of Balcom JJ with the borrowed date of birth. One of the many unknowns is what happened to Edward, father of Balcom JJ. He must have had an effect on JJ because he named his son for him but the record suggests he wasn't in his life. There is a death record for an Edward Faulkner, who had been married to a Mary Faulkner with the right range of birth year. The death record is for a black man, though having looked at many of these records they are often wrong on such facts. So maybe it's him, maybe not. That Edward died April 1, 1933, just a month before the exchange. Rab Rab, Thanks to both you and to Siglinde for the links and the documents. I will certainly be exploring this further! As far as what happened to Edward the father of Balcom John, I found something interesting. According to the 1900 census for Edward, his occupation was listed as a horseshoer. I also see that Edward spells his last name of Falkner and not Faulkner. I found the following information for an Edward and Minnie Falkner. It is a directory lising for 1959. It is a Louisvile, Kentucky directory. If you had been a person who serviced horses, Louisville is the place for you to find work. Maybe this is where Edward and Minnie went once they left New York. Both Edward and Minnie would have been in their 80's by 1959. Could this be them?? Amy
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Sept 5, 2017 16:09:47 GMT -5
Hi Amy, our Edward was Edward Joseph Faulkner (though sometimes he went as Joseph E) so I don't believe that's him in Louisville. Though it's not 100% conclusive I think the attached is the death record for Mary (Minnie). Her maiden name was Sullivan, the age and location are correct and it would explain how JJ ended up at Balcom. The part which is inconclusive is that the record says she was single, which could be incorrect, equally we don't actually have a marriage record for Edward and Mary so who knows. Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 20:52:20 GMT -5
Hi Amy, our Edward was Edward Joseph Faulkner (though sometimes he went as Joseph E) so I don't believe that's him in Louisville. Though it's not 100% conclusive I think the attached is the death record for Mary (Minnie). Her maiden name was Sullivan, the age and location are correct and it would explain how JJ ended up at Balcom. The part which is inconclusive is that the record says she was single, which could be incorrect, equally we don't actually have a marriage record for Edward and Mary so who knows. Rab Rab, Thanks so much for sharing the Mary Faulkner death listing. It certainly would explain how Balcom John came to be living with his Uncle. So it is Edward Joseph Faulkner I need to be looking for; possibly Joseph E. I see I have more research to do on this! Dr. Lloyd Gardner talks about Balcom John in his The Case That Never Dies book on page 121 (paperback edition). He says the following: "New Jersey State Police officers found a John J Faulkner had been living with his mother at 1336 Balcom Avenue, the Bronx, less than a block away from St. Raymond's Cemetery. This J.J. Faulkner had been a pupil of Condon's at P.S.#12. His mother had had her son committed to something called the Catholic Protectory in 1914, after lodging a complaint that he had burglarized her home."Lloyd's source for this information is two NJSP reports, one by Lieut. Arthur Keaton and one by Sergent A. Zapolsky. Both reports are dated May 8, 1933. Have you seen these reports, Rab? I was wondering who these officers were interviewing to get this information about Balcom John's mother being alive and well in 1914! It sounds like Mary is living in the same apartment building as James Faulkner at the time Balcom John is turned over to the Catholic Protectory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 9:43:47 GMT -5
So Rab, I did some checking on Edward J Faulkner and I found his death index listing. His last name is misspelled - probably a transcription error by whoever typed this record for this listing. This is definitely him. I read through the will of Edward Faulkner and he definitely had his son John with him. Edward named James J. Faulkner as his executor and also named James to be John's guardian. There was a surrogate filing made by Jeremiah Sullivan for guardianship of John Faulkner, who was 8 years old at the time of his father's death. This filing was revoked by the surrogate court and a special guardian was appointed as John's legal representative with the court while Edward's will was being probated. James and Isabella were caring for John at the time all this legal stuff was going on. James had to file for legal guardianship. So it looks like John Faulkner lost both his mother and father by the time his was 8 years old. Edward was living at 179 Nassau Avenue, Brooklyn NY at the time of his death in 1908.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Sept 11, 2017 14:30:33 GMT -5
That's excellent, Amy, thank you so much, it fills in many important missing details. What sad young lives indeed for our two John Faulkners.
I have seen the reports referenced by Lloyd. To explain the confusion about who caused the committal of Balcom John, I quote from Keaton's report "...Faulkner was committed to the Catholic Protectory in New York on the complaint of his mother Isabel..." Of course, Isabel (Isabella) was actually his aunt, as we now know.
These are the only two reports, it seems, of investigation into Balcom John or the wider Faulkner family. As I said in my original post, it perplexes that the investigation seemed to stop dead, just as it was getting started. My personal feeling is that there was more investigation but for whatever reason it's missing from the files.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2017 16:19:21 GMT -5
These are the only two reports, it seems, of investigation into Balcom John or the wider Faulkner family. As I said in my original post, it perplexes that the investigation seemed to stop dead, just as it was getting started. My personal feeling is that there was more investigation but for whatever reason it's missing from the files. Here is the more informative of the two May 8th Reports: The "Balcom John" investigation seems to stop only after NY and NJ interviewed him. It was kind of brought back during the Hoffman Investigation but nothing that I've found there seems to implicate him in any way. What does seem interesting is Condon's connection to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 8:22:47 GMT -5
Here is the more informative of the two May 8th Reports: The "Balcom John" investigation seems to stop only after NY and NJ interviewed him. It was kind of brought back during the Hoffman Investigation but nothing that I've found there seems to implicate him in any way. What does seem interesting is Condon's connection to him. Thanks so much for posting this report! I am assuming that NY and NJ authorities did speak with Balcom John in 1933(?) and learned he was a police officer. Would they have looked at him at all once they knew this, even though he had that past connection to Condon? Especially if Condon was not being viewed seriously as a suspect? I agree with Rab that more investigation was warranted regarding this line of investigation. I am hoping that you will cover this in Volume Two! This report also brings up another person of interest for me, John Fries. Fries had been rooming for a while with Hurley during the construction of the Lindbergh house. I see in this report he must have moved from the Hurley residence but still stayed in the Hopewell area even after the house was completed. He was there until May 1932. I know that he was eventually located in the New England area (Connecticut?) and cleared. Cleared how? His handwriting didn't match or something? I personally believe there was a local connection involved with this kidnapping. Fries became a serious person of interest for me after reading about him in your book, TDC, chapter three.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 13, 2017 10:05:21 GMT -5
Looking through the Protectory list of names from 1800-1900 no Faulkner listed. Seems to be an orphanage. Didn't a Faulkner pass a five dollar ransom note at sometime? The only other five dollar bill I remember was the one from the movie on November 30th.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2017 16:34:21 GMT -5
Looking through the Protectory list of names from 1800-1900 no Faulkner listed.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Sept 13, 2017 18:22:30 GMT -5
Looking through the Protectory list of names from 1800-1900 no Faulkner listed. Thank you.
|
|
curious seeking knowledge
Guest
|
Post by curious seeking knowledge on Feb 23, 2024 2:52:26 GMT -5
About 1891 – we don’t know the exact date – John Faughnan left his homeland, his parents Thomas and Bridget, sisters Maggie and Jane. Like any other emigrant, no doubt he felt the mixture of dread and excitement of what laid ahead and the sadness of leaving Cloontagh and Briskil Bridge, the Co Longford townlands where he had been raised as a farmer’s son. For this new adventure, John would take on a new name. He would follow the lead of his uncle John, who in the leaving of Ireland took a new name for a new world. Uncle John had passed that name down to his own sons. And now his nephew John would follow suit. In America, John Faughnan would become John Faulkner. John headed to Brooklyn, where his uncle was already well-established as a horseshoer in a close-knit Irish community in Greenpoint. There were plenty of other Faulkner family members, including James and Edward who were born in New York and could guide their Irish cousin. By 1897, John was a policeman and married to Annie Walsh, an Englishwoman. The relationship of the young couple was bookended by two tragedies. In 1898, their firstborn, Annie, died followed a mere handful of years later by Annie herself in 1905. In between, they had a son (born January 19, 1900) and another daughter, Florence (born 1901). John, perhaps unable to cope with the demands of two small children and a life in the NYPD, turned to his sister Lizzie and her husband Patrick McAuliffe for help. John would live with them in Brooklyn for nearly 10 years, the children for much longer, Florence and the son that John and Annie had named John Faulkner. As John’s life was progressing through hard times in Brooklyn, his cousin Edward’s was following a similar path. He too had found a bride, Mary Sullivan, and they had a son in 1900, on February 9, born just 21 days after his second cousin. For synchronicity, lack of imagination or in tribute they named him John Joseph Faulkner. In 1904, it seems Mary died and Edward disappeared from the scene. Another motherless John Faulkner went to live with an aunt and uncle, this time Edward’s brother, James, and his wife Isabella. In time, James and Isabella would move their growing family, including their nephew JJ Faulkner, to a large house on high ground at 1336 Balcom Avenue in the Bronx. Its elevated position afforded views to the south, along Balcom and past Waterbury Avenue into the expanse of St Raymond’s cemetery. The lives of these two John Faulkners of the same family progressed in relative prosperity in different boroughs of New York City. How much they knew or saw of each other is difficult to know. They were connected by name, by the proximity of their birth, by blood and by the loss of motherly love before they even understood what it was to have it. But they went to school; they remained with their respective aunts and uncles. At P.S. 12, John of Balcom Ave became a pupil of a veteran of the Bronx school system, John F Condon. John Faulkner Snr, still in Brooklyn, continued as an NYPD patrolman. Cousin James in the Bronx worked as a special agent on the railway, later his son-in-law would be a cemetery guard. Despite these good examples of law and order around him, John of Balcom Ave strayed from the good path. In 1915, he was removed from school and sent to the Catholic Protectory on a charge of breaking into his aunt and uncle’s house. And then, in 1918, whether the lives of these two young men were connected or not, external events brought about an intersection. It was precipitated by the entry of the US into WW1 and the need for John of Balcom Ave to register for the draft. Register he did, giving his Balcom address and naming his aunt Isabella as his next of kin. But under date of birth, instead of giving the correct February 9, 1900 he co-opted the date of birth of his Brooklyn second cousin, entering January 19, 1900. Aside from the draft card, there seems to be no record that John of Balcom served but his second cousin did, spending nearly 18 months in France. In the 1920s, their lives, however close they may or may not once have been, diverged. Balcom John had been a railway brakeman and his second cousin an office clerk but they both had periods of unemployment. In 1922, Balcom John married Anna Buckley, a Scottish woman. In an echo of the tragedy of his own mother, she would die only three years later, the young couple childless. Sometime in 1926 or early 1927, Brooklyn John moved to Georgia where in April, 1927 he married Mabel Powell. He worked as a store clerk and on a dairy farm and in 1932 he and Mabel had a daughter, Doris. Meanwhile, his second cousin put aside whatever lingering impact there may have been of his teenage crime and became a NYC policeman before marrying for a second time, to Lucy Hoar, in 1929. They went on to have three children together. The marriage in Georgia didn’t last and John seemed to drift from job to job with periods of unemployment. But he stayed in Georgia, perhaps because he had nowhere else to go, and died there in 1980. Balcom John moved with his new family to Queens and remained an NYPD patrolman. In a 1954 social security application, he again used the date of birth of his cousin rather than his own. As a result that incorrect date was recorded on the death index when he died in 1967. So, what, if anything, is the value of this story? Of course, on May 1, 1933 $2,980 in Lindbergh ransom money was exchanged at the Federal Reserve in NYC. The deposit was traced to a slip bearing the name (and perhaps signature) of a JJ Faulkner of 537 West 149 Street. Despite an exhaustive investigation of residents past and present at that address and in particular the family of former resident Jane Faulkner, no connection was made between a JJ Faulkner and 537 W 149. The investigation extended to all JJ Faulkners in NYC. In order to gather such a list, the authorities consulted the city directories, amongst other sources. What went uncommented – but perhaps not unnoticed – was that in 6 city directories from 1913 to 1920, the entry for the Jane Faulkner of the Plymouth Apartments is directly below that of JJ (James J) Faulkner of Balcom Ave. So was there a connection? Did someone combine these elements or are the intersections with multiple JJ Faulkners, with Condon, with St Ray’s merely coincidences? What would answer the question is the corresponding exhaustive investigation of the Faughnan / Faulkner family as was conducted of the Jane Faulkner family. But there is no such investigation. There is a small number of reports referring to John the former pupil of Condon who was then a policemen, apparently ruling him out as a suspect but without revealing why (though Michael may know better on this point). There is also a suggestion of some investigation of the John in Georgia, a scrap of paper supposedly of his handwriting which eliminated him and with a strange notation referring to Lizzie McAuliffe as his guardian. But Lizzie had died in 1931. This leaves us with the mystery of why there was so little investigation or at least the mystery of why there is no remaining evidence of an investigation. It certainly seems at odds with the frenzy, the arguable hounding to suicide of Leipold, which attended the Jane Faulkner investigation. It leaves unanswered what else there was to learn about this family, their connection to Condon and to St Ray’s. And, finally, there is the question of the date of birth swap. Given it happened 14 years before the kidnapping it can’t be said to be related. But it was a swap which was persisted by Balcom John. Perhaps it was an early attempt at identity theft to put his crime behind him and clear the way for his future life in the police. The documents supporting all of this are available online at the usual family history sites or I can post relevant ones here if anyone needs them. The bulk of this research is by Siglinde R, who knows and understands more about this case than I could ever possibly hope to emulate, and who asked me to post the results of our debate on these points here. Cheers Rab Rab, I'm sure that must of us (including myself) appreciate the mountain of genealogical work you did on these two second cousins, the J. J. Faulkners. But you do you really think that someone who knew he was depositing "dirty money" would use his real name on the deposit slip, even with initials? Please read the post I put up in July, directly above yours in this thread. I think it's quite probable that Noel Behn solved the mystery of who was "J. J. Faulkner" - both the "J. J. Faulkner" of the deposit slip and the "J. J. Faulkner" who later wrote to the New York Daily News in an attempt to vindicate Bruno Richard Hauptmann months before Hauptmann's execution. Behn states that a handwriting expert used by Governor Hoffman concluded that both of these writers were one and the same: Jacob Nosovitsky. Behn further states that he looked at Nosovitsky's many aliases in his New York Police Dept. file, and that "J. J. Faulkner" was one of them. From my take on this, assuming Behn was accurate and honest, it would appear that the "J. J. Faulkner" writer on both documents was JACOB NOSOVITSKY. As you may be aware, Nosovitsky knew Condon before March 1, 1932, so could have known of the name "J. J. Faulkner" from him and Nosovitsky could have been the person who looked up Jane Faulkner's address in the old city directory and used it on the deposit slip. A real sleazy and cunning character, that's what Noso was to those who knew him. Is anyone aware or researched the fact that the Lindbergh babies grandfather , Congressman Charles Augustus Lindbergh sr. had attempted to expose the same Federal Reserve, in his years as Minnesota's Congressman, for treacherous plans against the Untied States. He shared with them the "Banker's Manifesto, from the "Civil Servant's Handbook" jan 1934(organizers) "Capital must protect itself in every way ... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the STRONG ARM OF THE LAW (Cops) applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as TEACHERS OF THE COMMON HERD." He was shut down every time. Is it just coincidence that these ransom notes and gold certificates be found in the same institution, he tried to expose, in the kidnapping of his grandchild and namesake?
|
|