|
Post by john on Sept 17, 2009 0:09:31 GMT -5
Does anyone here know of whether there has been a modern "no dog in the fight" criminal profiling of the Lindbergh kidnapper (and/or Cemetery John, the gang, if there was one) so as to shed some new light on this case from an outsider who's also an expert in criminal psychology?
Most of what I've read on the case has been either pro- or anti-Hauptmann, with very little in-between. It would be refreshing to hear from someone with expertise in criminal profiling who could look at the case without regard to Hauptmann (or "gang theory") but simply as a professional who does this for a living, understands the criminal mentality, the kinds of people who kidnap, write ransom notes, behave as Cemetery John did,--which isn't to say it's the same person--and who might also have a few insights into how people wrongly accused of major crimes behave during their arrest, incarcerations and trials as well as how guilty people behave.
John
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2009 5:48:28 GMT -5
John,
This is a really good question and since I read it I've been looking....
To find someone with no agenda is really tough. As to modern day I don't remember reading anything although I don't have access to the Behavioral Science Journals. I thought Bryan might have hired someone, on a whim, but haven't located any evidence. I am going to dive into HRO's stuff because he wrote and consulted just about anyone he could think of. I will let you know if I find anything - but as it stands now, if there was such an opinion or evaluation - then it evades me or I have forgotten about it since.
If anyone knows of anything please help us out.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2009 15:44:40 GMT -5
By no means is this "modern" but its interesting nevertheless - at least I think so. Those people who steadfastly protest their innocence or stubbornly refuse to talk are, in most cases, introverts. A notorious example was Richard Hauptmann, the man convicted of the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby. Throughout interminable questioning both in private and during the trial, Hauptmann remained adamant in his denial of all knowledge of the crime. Even the prosecuting attorney seemed to evince grudging admiration for the man's steadfast denial which withstood the most ingenious verbal assaults. Although Hauptmann was crafty and mentally alert, his emotional stamina during the trial was derived, doubtless, from his tenacious hold on the subjective context which enabled him to break all affective contact with the objective world. Because of his native ability to do this the introvert suffers little temptation to confess. On the contrary, the examination itself serves to rally every resource of self-defense, walling him off even more effectively from the external contact and destroying what little relation he is able ordinarily to maintain with unincorporated people.
[Introvert or Extravert, Virgina Case, 1941, p.185-86.]
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 18, 2009 18:51:23 GMT -5
Thanks for all the input, Michael. I'm familiar with Jungian psychology somewhat, having read several of the great man's books back in the Stone Age of my youth. It was Jung who coined the terms introvert and extrovert, and these terms have been mainstreamed, which isn't true of most of what Jung wrote, as he and his former colleague, Sigmund Freud, became bitter adversaries, which made Jung somewhat of a pariah in his field. In The Lonely Crowd sociologist David Reisman used similar (but in crucial ways different) terms to describe various aspects of the modern American character, inner-directed and other-directed (also, tradition-directed), but I'm getting off track here.
To return to Hauptmann, the man was an extreme introvert, for sure. This is obvious from the way he conducted his life: compartmentalized, rather formal, distanced, inclined to secrecy. However, at the time this wasn't so far from the American norm as one might think. As Reisman pointed out in his landmark book, we were founded on inner-directedness, the Constitution and our laws reflect as much. This is a very Protestant way of thiking and feeling. In the twentieth century we began drifting away from inner-directedness, to a dramatic degree around mid-century, and became increasingly other-directed, due in large part to the mass media and the assimilation of various ethnic groups into the mainstream. Once more, I digress.
Interestingly, to continue along these lines, and also to channel Schonfeld a bit, Lindbergh was as inner-directed as Hauptmann. If there were to be, somewhere, in an alternate universe, a celebrity death match,--Hauptmann vs. Lindbergh--as to the issue of who was more the introvert, it would be a draw. Both men were private, methodical, tight-lipped and somewhat mysterious, with their inner selves very much hidden from view. The one was the mirror (perhaps crazy mirror) image of the other, with the major difference being that Lindbergh was more fortunate, more resourceful, made it to the big leagues, while Hauptmann was a small timer. Characterologically, not as individuals but as to their personal styles, they were virtual soul-mates. Ludovic Kennedy, of all the authors on the case, saw these similarities when he wrote The Airman and the Carpenter, my first and still favorite book on the case, maybe because of Kennedy's near poetic ability to see the parallels between these two men and draw attention to them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2009 8:55:29 GMT -5
I took a course in College on Jungian dream analysis and interpretation. No doubt in my mind he knew what he was talking about. (Seems like yesterday but - it wasn't).
I don't know. I just see Lindbergh as an absolutely unique individual. Hauptmann did say some curious things to those he was familiar. For example, bragging about being a "big shot" in the market. Or telling Otto Wollenberg Fisch was worth a lot of money after he made a comment that Fisch was a "little shrimp" to Hauptmann. People were coming to Hauptmann for loans or for investments - and the money was always clean. So in the end, how does he get caught "red-handed" with a ransom note? You see, no way does that happen to Lindbergh if the roles were reversed. A deviation occurs only if there's no other choice, or if the need for his Control arrives.
Hauptmann could be controlled, but Lindbergh could not be (imo).
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 19, 2009 13:00:13 GMT -5
Of the many differences between Lindbergh and Hauptmann, the former was indeed a big shot, the latter a relative nobody. There were indeed occasions when Hauptmann said foolish things, as when he told the gas station attendant that he had "plenty more" gold certificates at home! It makes one wonder if the guy wanted to get caught. There are so many ways to view Hauptmann. If he was indeed the lone kidnapper he was both very lucky and very unlucky. One would think that the dead baby, assuming that it was an accident, would have deterred him. Then he brought up his price from 50K to 70, only to lower it again in the end. Like, wha!
If a lone kidnapper, Hauptmann was shrewd enough to suggest "we" and "us" in his negotiations with Lindbergh and Condon. Yet he foolishly met with Condon in his home borough, where he could easily have been followed home after one of his negotiations. He was either clever enough to have known or guessed that the coast would be clear the Tuesday night of the kidnapping, stupid to have responded to an ad in the Bronx Home News, which would have only drawn attention to his own neighborhood, the last thing a smart criminal would want to do, eh?
With his knowledge of who Condon was, where he lived, Hauptmann the guilty continued to hang out in the same old places, where Condon could conceivably have spotted him, spent time on Hunter's Island; rather reckless behavior for a baby killer-extortionist, and behavior inconsistent with his cleverness in other aspects of his life. The calling in of the gold certificates under FDR should have been a gigantic red flag for Hauptmann. The more he spent, the more likely he was to get caught. Yet he continued to not only spend ransom money but did so in the Bronx, gave the game away when he said there's lots more at home (why didn't he just tell the guy he had the bills buried in his garage?).
Then there's the Fisch story Hauptmann told the police after his arrest. Surely this criminal mastermind could have come up with a better tale than the one he told; and if the authorities didn't believe him, at the very least could have embellished it a bit here and there. A dead Fisch! Let's say that there's a grain of truth to the story, as indeed Hauptmann was acquainted with Fisch, did do business with him. Maybe he was trying to fence the ransom money through Fisch,--rather than, as he told it, by implication, the other way around--and then bad luck intervened. The man had a long time to mull this one over. What he told the police sounds like a poor excuse for his having all that money squirreled away. Then there's Hauptmann's refusal to name his accomplices. If he was a lone kidnapper he'd have had nothing to lose by making up names, stirring the pot, as it were, keeping the police dashing hither and yon looking for Hans Schmidt here, Fritz Mueller there, only to come up empty, at which point he could say, "I forgot to mention Siggy Eisenbach from Schenectady, he was in on it, too".
Assuming that Hauptmann was as guilty as Wilentz claimed he was, why did he behave as he did? He was indeed an introvert, but was he a megalomaniac in the bargain? Wilentz suggested as much in his summation: Hauptmann saw himself as a kind of ubermensch, better than everyone else, a superior being, superior even to Lindbergh himself, perhaps, as a shrink might put it, to compensate for his being such a small fry in the real world. This sort of thinking is what we'd nowadays call grandiose, and this may have been true of Hauptmann. If so, he seemed to slip back and forth a lot, from grandiose to stupid, from clever to naive. I suppose it's possible. Essentially, Hauptmann bet the farm on the Fisch story, and, if one believes him guilty, "played" the noble German carpenter, sticking to his guns to the end, refusing any and all offers to alter his story to save his life. That's pretty high stakes gambling for such a penny ante guy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2009 8:13:16 GMT -5
Some ideas/suggestions/responses to your observations....
For me, as evidenced by the sums going into his various accounts being "clean" money, Hauptmann is either laundering money in a particular way that is very good (either himself, someone else or both), then for some unknown reason, resorts to throwing money around out of his own hand in a way that seems almost absurd.
What changed to cause him to stray from his previous course of action?
I have seen it mentioned (where I have forgotten as of now) that Hauptmann offered the I have a "hundred more at home" reply as a means to protect himself with the $100 provision within FDRs gold recall.
This would have worked back in June - of '33 but by September of '34, there just weren't many of these bills floating around at all. It's why Lyle thought is may be counterfeit.
Again, not very smart for a man who was supposed to be all what has been attributed to him. Like I mentioned in a recent post to Kevin, there's a degree of luck in just about everything. But here we can't chalk everything up to luck. If there were the case then Hauptmann would have hit the lotto 10 out of 10 times both during the crime and over the course of 2-1/2 years where the Police never had him in their sites.
I've read many letters to the Governor saying this exact thing. Only a Pro would kill the baby then continue to collect the ransom. Hauptmann was not a "pro." Whoever continued to collect the ransom did so contained within a method that seemed to provide for the course of events. The raising of this money could be taken literally, like Inspector Walsh believed was caused by the addition of Condon, or what they believe would be an expected course of action. There had to be a "punishment" for being disobeyed. In $20K then it seems to make everyone happy. Then Condon tips off "John" about these bills and he gives them back - "thanks, but no thanks." This too makes everyone happy - excepting the "T-Men" who want to punch Condon in the face. Lucky for him, Lindbergh has his back.
Foolish unless they actually trusted Condon. Foolish enough unless they somehow knew Lindbergh called off the Cops during this event.
Exactly.
You nailed it again.
What if the story is true but with omissions? Still though, one would think regardless - he would be better prepared for this especially after what Finn noted.
Telling the true story of events would have netted him a life sentence and at least $75,000 in cash. Despite his hopes being raised by the Governor's efforts, in the end, he knew he was going down. I think "pretending" or "lying" like Means would, may have rallied those who had probably made threats against his family if he talked. Just my opinion but he didn't seem to want to come across as if he were talking.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 20, 2009 8:37:55 GMT -5
Basically, it seems the bulk of this argument is based on the notion that Hauptmann's actions were both at once smart and stupid and therefore this indicates multiple players at work. The reality is that everyone can exhibit the very same actions. We are all smart and dumb at the same time ( though we usually don't see the latter). Criminals are no exception. Add to that mix a personality trait or psychological disorder which allows the ego to run rampant.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 20, 2009 12:04:54 GMT -5
Hauptmann claimed to Hoffman that he never said that he had more gold certificates at home to Walter Lyle. That's his side of the story. Even he said that would be stupid; after the fact of course. This is Monday morning fixing on Hauptmann's part but there may be a grain of truth to it. The interchange with Lyle was perhaps more protracted, about the weather, this and that, and that Hauptmann perhaps misspoke, saying that he had more money at home, so as to not give the impression of being impoverished (this was 1934, after all) rather than what it sounds like, which is "I have a lot more of those easily traceable Lindbergh ransom money gold certificates at home", which is practically an invitation to the attendant to write down his license number. People in criminal cases often give distilled versions of events, thus a twenty minute conversation sounds like a much briefer five minute exchange when related by a witness in the courtroom.
That's true, Michael, as to Hauptmann sticking to the Fisch story, improbable as it sounded. If one buys into Bob Mills' thesis and he was a fall guy or minor player in a larger scheme then he needed to be careful not to seem to be spilling the beans even with apocryphal tales. It might give the impression that he was snapping. Also, I've often wondered over the years if the Fisch story itself was a signal, that Hauptmann's sticking to it was his way of alerting his confederate's that now's the time. This isn't that far-fetched. It could have been "if they arrest me, I'll give them the Fisch business, if charged with the kidnapping itself I'll stay the course, if on trial for murder in the first degree, I still give them Fisch". In other words, Hauptmann's obstinacy was his way of alerting his partners in crime that he was holding up his part of the bargain (maybe everyone in the gang had a comparable story they'd tell if arrested), with the implication behind this that "now it's time for you guys to do your part", and this is where the waving the dead Fisch failed. Hauptmann's pals didn't do what they were supposed to do to save him. It was the deal that Hauptmann would hang on to his story, then he'd be rescued, as it were, by some piece of exculpatory evidence or testimony, which didn't happen, thus he went through the trial and appeals in the hope that his former allies would somehow bail him out in the end, if not completely, enough to save his life. Didn't happen, hence Hauptmann's smugness during the trial, his increasing desperation after being convicted of murder and sent to the death house.
I agree, Kevin, even brilliant people, including master criminals make mistakes, say and do stupid things. The problem I have with putting Hauptmann in that category,--"the guy who made a few mistakes"--is that each mistake was bringing him closer to the electric chair. Assuming that the baby's death was an accident, that was certainly a good reason to quite right then and there, eh? The meetings with Condon in the graveyards. A close shave. The discovery of the child's body, yet another mistake, assuming it was dropped there the night of the kidnapping, in which case it would have wise for Hauptmann to have taken the risk and gone back for it at some point. You may be right about his being full of himself, that he was such an egomaniac he felt above the law, that he possessed magical powers. He may not have seen what you and I would view as mistakes as mistakes but rather as proof that he couldn't get caught even when things didn't go according to plan.
John
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2009 6:53:21 GMT -5
What's a "bit" player when everyone's part is essential? Imagine someone wants something done but don't want their hands dirty? Listen, nowadays its far fetched but back then it wasn't. I know from Professional experience that "old school" Mobsters exist(ed). The proof still to this day sits in a few prison cells serving their 30 years to life when they could have been out in 5... or less. Only if they talked. Sometimes even against an enemy. Nope, they just don't talk. Again, no matter what the price they do not talk. Trustworthy to the end. An oxymoron, I know, but absolutely true.
Jafsie.
"Hey, even if one of us is caught, ole' Jafsie won't identify us. The worst that happens is we're holding a bag of hot money."
And Condon did his best didn't he? He even tried to help Hauptmann by throwing in that he thought he saw Fisch.
But then he did something Hauptmann would never have done - he flipped.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 21, 2009 13:15:15 GMT -5
Condon also met with Hauptmann in his cell so as to determine once more that he was (or wasn't) Cemetery John, apparently went out of his way to make sure, believed that Hauptmann had not acted alone.
Indeed, as I plod through the Behn book I come upon all sorts of nuggets, some of which I was already aware of, such as Wilentz being willing to go along with old pal Gov. Hoffman as to Hauptmann's not being the lone kidnapper. "Then why why the hell doesn't he say something?" was his response to the governor. Wilentz was apparently amenable to a charge of extortion vs. kidnapping, but Hauptmann had cooperate for this to happen. In other words, the state wasn't going to do all the work.
The aforementioned raises the issue of Wilentz's sincerity in his prosecution of Hauptmann, his first such. He went after the guy hammer and tong, appeared to have a personal animus against Hauptmann, due to a combination of the accused being German and his superior manner. Wilentz gave it everything he had. Yet after the fact, chatting with Hoffman, he was willing to discount the eyewitnesses, admitted that the case against Hauptmann was circumstantial, but a case there was.
John
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 21, 2009 20:22:13 GMT -5
Sure for organized crime with vetted members. But there is absolutely no evidence that I'm aware of that Hauptmann was a blood member of any such gang. As such he was afforded no privilege. All he would be is a very expendable liability. A liability that no gang would need to carry on their books one minute past the completion of the crime. There may be mobsters in cells because of a code of silence, but there certainly are many more who never lived to be tested.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2009 6:12:40 GMT -5
Hauck approached Fisher with a proposal because, as he put it, there's always more involved in these types of crimes. They knew more were involved, but in all fairness they also firmly believed in Hauptmann's guilt and didn't want him to escape the full penalty of law due to this. So if more came along then great but if it didn't then Hauptmann was getting what he had coming. Either way there was justice. Gov. Hoffman saw it exactly opposite - if Hauptmann died then the truth died with him - and others escaped.
I see what you are saying but my post was merely to make the point. The "Mob" didn't always use its members though, in fact, they often employed those who would be likely to commit such an act in the first place. There are all kinds of associates out there. At one time people, although criminals, were more trustworthy in this regard - you just had to find the right criminals.
I think we can agree that Hauptmann, especially as it pertains to those others who were involved, was the right guy since they went free and he went to the chair without giving them up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2009 7:23:47 GMT -5
For me, it's where the gang/ setup theories all fall apart. No organized gang would allow BRH to walk around no matter how tight lipped he was thought to be. It's a risk that simply doesn't have to be taken. Hauptmann could "disappear" and the world would never notice. There would simply be too much at stake.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 22, 2009 12:43:49 GMT -5
There was a massive, unpublicized search for Nosovitsky in the winter of 1936. He was regarded as a major suspect and to some rather resembled Hauptmann; also, Cemetery John, as described by Condon, which made his worth tracking down. Is it possible that it was Noso who was CJ rather than Bruno? Maybe the reason for bringing Hauptmann into the deal was that he did vaguely resemble Noso, lived in the Bronx, had a German accent, which would have made him a perfect fall guy. If there were two groups of criminals, the kidnappers-extortionists and the fences, the ones who acquired the ransom loot after the fact. Hauptmann and Fisch may have been members of the latter (or constituted the latter all by themselves), with Hauptmann's likeness to Noso a serendipitous "extra".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2009 17:46:33 GMT -5
Please don't take what I am saying as an "absolute." Certain tests and/or areas which exhibit reliability is what gets someone into a position of trust. This can eventually gain acceptance within any gangland type of environment. Doesn't mean someone with these traits actually are a Member of a "mob" or a "gang." Look at it in a loose sense or general term.
I look at possibilities in an "if - then" type of situation. If Condon was telling the truth then John could not have been Hautpmann. Why? Was Hauptmann a pouty, scared, and worried type? Was he sickly and poor? Was he afraid of being "smacked down" by anyone? Did he take orders and fear those he worked with? Was he emotional and would he be reprimanded by an old fool like Condon?
So again, if Condon is telling the truth then he would later say John was dead. The Police believed this possibility and had him looking through files upon files of the recently departed.
So if this was true who killed him? And why was he killed?
But if Condon was lying then why? And why did he kill off the only man he swore to everyone on the planet he could identify?
Do you see where I am coming from? Link this up with Hauptmann's confidence then his "shock and awe" after learning Condon broke weak. Too late to kill Condon, and after all, why would you? Hauptmann wouldn't talk, and they all knew it.
Nosovitsky is someone any James Bond movie could apply to. The difference being he was real. Noso didn't play both sides of the fence - he played EVERY side. If Means was day then Noso was night. Means pretended while Noso did everything. He was a perfect candidate to have set this whole thing up then be in California when it happens.
The problem for me is: I don't think he was involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 22, 2009 18:31:02 GMT -5
Michael, no one could know this. More to the point, why would anyone even think of banking on that when it's so unnecessary? Hauptmann disappears and who going to notice? This fact alone pretty much destroys the notion of him as a player in some sort of gang. That's not to mention the complete lack of evidence that he was affiliated with any such gang. As for Condon, do you really believe anyone with the slightest street smarts would consider for one New York minute to become involved with him in a crime of this audacity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2009 18:52:55 GMT -5
I disagree. You have what you know about him AND the threat against his family as insurance - just in case.
If Hauptmann is the one who needs to disappear. And when does he need to? And so it must be assumed he needs to be erased, and those who need to do it are in that position to make it happen. Again, do you see my point?
I see evidence of a crime which was planned for and executed in many stages by more then one person. Was it a "gang?" Maybe, then again, maybe a "gang" formed for this task only.
Next, there are all types of "gangs" and all types of "guns for hire." What are the possibilities? What are not and why?
Either one and only one person is involved. If not, then we have a "conspiracy" involving two or more people. What is they're relationship outside of the crime? Is there one? How do they become involved with one another? All of these are unanswered so we cannot answer them at all by saying they would kill Hauptmann. It's a possibility - yes, but among many.
This is the problem with absolutes when so much is unknown. What works the best? A guy pretending to be many? Actually running down one street and showing up across the street signaling himself? All that to pretend more then one person is involved? Why? What's the point of that? In case he gets caught? Well, what does he do once he does?
I do believe Inspector Walsh was right. Condon was perfect for this role and did a hell of a job up to the point where he was about to be arrested. He held out as long as he could.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 23, 2009 7:38:33 GMT -5
That's not 100%. Only dead men tell no tales and Hauptmann would certainly be easy enough to eliminate.
No, I'm afraid I don't. You don't have to assume that he needs to be erased, you can be certain of it ( if you believe he is part of some gang). He's a walking liability and there's a far easier fix than threats.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 23, 2009 10:42:16 GMT -5
Michael: You don't think that Nosovitsky was involved in any facet of this case whatsoever? He seems like a good candidate as someone who'd want to abduct Lindbergh's child, as he had issues with Lindbergh's father in law as well as J. Edgar. If the crime had been in the planning stages for a long time, assuming that the ransom notes are in this respect truthful, the early phases of the plan would likely have bee when Dwight Morrow was alive, which would have sweetened the deal considerably.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2009 16:01:14 GMT -5
Really? At what point? Before he is arrested or after? After Condon refuses to identify him or after Condon's testimony in Flemington?
Isn't Condon an easier target then Hauptmann?
There's just too much to assume. I do agree its something to consider but while that consideration is made then it opens up to many others.
If Condon was truthful one is dead already. Also, one had left and took the symbol away. At some point, if Condon is truthful, how many are left to actually kill Hauptmann?
There's too many variables to say there is only one absolute answer.
Well he was. He filed a lawsuit in relationship to this case for libel or something similar. Additionally, after he was located then cleared by the Police - McLean hired him to make some investigation about it.
While I do believe people were "hired" to take part in this crime and someone clever and resourceful like Nosovitsky was probably that person - I just don't think it was him. I have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to go by. I think his hands concerning this case were clean.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 24, 2009 11:41:04 GMT -5
Evalyn Walsh McLean was quite the airhead, I gather! ;D
If Nosovitsky had no involvement in the LKC this puts the Stroh-Doyle business in a different light. Were they not telling the truth?
As to Noso, if he's off the table then I wonder who's next. Bob thinks that John Hughes Curtis may have been in contact with the kidnappers. I don't know about him. There are so many stories to follow in this case that it's easy to get lost. Also, stupidity and cluelessness seemed to reign on both sides, criminal and law enforcement alike.
As I wrote at the other forum, and thus far got no responses, it strikes me as most peculiar that during the ransom negotiations it wasn't insisted upon that something with the child's fingerprints be turned over by Condon and, especially, Lindbergh. Even asking to see a photograph of the kidnapped child does not strike me as an unreasonable request.
Also, isn't it customary in kidnapping cases for the person who was abducted to be turned out at the same time as the ransom? Since the criminals have already shown bad faith in doing the deed there strikes me as no good reason to expect them to behave in good faith once they have the money. This ought to have been insisted upon in the dealings with CJ. It's true that the kidnappers, even assuming that it was just Hauptmann involved, would have been putting themselves at risk by having a young child in a car, had the child been in good health and been turned over immediately, it's not unreasonable to assume that the family would honor their side of the bargain. Since the child was probably dead by that time (though we can't be sure), all CJ had to do was pick up the money and flee. If they'd nabbed CJ right then and there, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2009 15:37:27 GMT -5
I don't trust Stroh. I believe there may be an element of the truth somewhere in there but it may not have anything to do with this Case.
Doyle was right on about Condon. But we have to look at everything else and weigh it carefully. Both Stroh & Doyle were looking to peddle a manuscript. Cashing in on this case became routine.
It's just my opinion about Noso. Please follow up any leads you think are legit and I will be happy to discuss them with what I know.
I agree with you. But this was Condon's doing. And also consider the suit was mailed from Stamford, Conn.
Another great point. We have Lindy to thank for this.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 26, 2009 13:08:48 GMT -5
I've tried, Michael, looking up Nosovitsky in various venues, including the Internet, with little success. He'd be a great subject for a biography if only the details of his life could be found! What we know of him is itself tantalizing to say the least. Gaston Means seems like a small timer compared to Noso, a virtual amateur. Nosovitsky was a man who could get things done and a real criminal. I wonder what connection if any Noso had to organized crime in his heyday.
As to Condon and CJ, he really should not have been allowed to negotiate with criminals on Lindbergh's behalf, to essentially make spot decisions, with no law enforcement oversight. It's one thing to allow an outsider to be a conduit in a criminal case, quite another to allow him to make what were life and death decisions regarding the return of the child and on what terms. I find it outrageous and horribly unfair that this was permitted, especially, as things turned out, a man was tried, convicted and executed based on circumstantial evidence and testimony by Condon and Lindbergh. A great deal of the burden of guilt for this, assuming that Hauptmann was either innocent or at worst peripherally involved, falls on these two men's shoulders. They bungled the negotiations with the man called Cemetery John, allowed him to get away with the ransom money, and this may well have been a factor in the child's death. I'm not convinced that thed body in the woods had been there since early March. It may well have not expired till well after that, some time in April.
John
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 27, 2009 7:43:47 GMT -5
The child was dead from the outset, the notes show this.
I'm not sure any of us can say for certain what we would do or not do under the same circumstances and believing a child's life was at stake. It was a different time with different rules and values, for better or worse. Today it would be handled differently, though not necessarily better ( just look at the Ramsey case).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2009 8:31:10 GMT -5
Here's a memo I came across a couple of years ago.... I believe I once posted it year about a year or two ago: An extensive investigation was conducted by the FBI and other agencies at that time in an effort to identify this person using the name of Faulkner. On February 28, 1938 the Los Angeles office advised by letter that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was in contact with a man using the name J. J. Faulkner, who was willing to sell a story to the newspapers to the effect that he had deposited some $2.000 of the Lindbergh ransom money in a bank but that he would also prove through documentary evidence the source from which he obtained this money. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for the Los Angeles Times, advised Special Agent in Charge Hanson that he had obtained information from his associates in New York which definitely indicated that Nosovitsky or Faulkner, who was supposed to be in Los Angeles at that time, was a fraud, and that a comparison of the handwriting of Nosovitsky with the handwriting of the J. J. Faulkner who had passed the ransom money indicated they were not identicle.... Special Agent Thornton to Nichols 8-38 (Source: NARA) There are several books which include Nosovitsky in them - some very recently. In fact, the next book I plan to buy is called the Impossible Triangle by Daniela Spenser (if anyone has it let me know what you think). Also, Noso wrote some articles about himself which I have in my files... I know we discussed this before, but do you believe he was dead before the first note was written?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 27, 2009 9:06:01 GMT -5
Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by dschwalie11 on Aug 8, 2011 16:13:18 GMT -5
I wish I WAS a criminal profiler because I have read enough to believe that it could go either way. Just one example -On one side why would Hauptmann, a carpenter, create such a shabby ladder, that would not even hold his weight, especially when he had been injured in WWI and had bouts of dizziness? On the other, what possible explanation could there be for most of the ransom money to be in Hauptmanns home? Also, the wood expert said that the ladder was made by a leftie. Does anyone know if Hauptmann was a leftie? I am new at this so if this has been posted before excuse my ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2011 18:34:15 GMT -5
Welcome to the board!
That would be Squire Johnson who made that assertion. Another reason for this belief originally was because the ladder was set to the right side which meant who ever climbed it had to use their left hand to open the window.
This position has never been seriously debated. Hauptmann was not left handed.
|
|