|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2016 20:40:57 GMT -5
Yes, Michael, and thank you. It was so convenient for whoever dropped the body off in the woods that Lindbergh was out looking for his living child, not even on dry land at the time. There's something strangely,--serendipitous?, not quite right--maybe just plain appropriate in the timing of this, as Lindbergh is himself safely away from home. I know we've discussed this before, but so many Members come and go it's hard for me to remember who was involved and who said what. So I'll re-share what I believe... It seems to me the body was hidden elsewhere. Based on Pam's research, the body while inside the bag was probably buried somewhere. Sometime after the ransom had been paid, a person or persons dug up the corpse or retrieved it from where ever it was. They drove to the area and threw the bag containing the corpse onto the road so that he would easily be found. This was probably done at night. As a result the wildlife came out of the woods and in dragging the corpse out of the bag - the bag remained on the side of the road. The animal(s) continued to drag the body into the woods. They ate some parts of him, but clearly rejected others. Then, whatever was (my guess is a fox) eating him finished then slightly buried him and covered him over with a small amount of dirt and leaves. For me, the idea he was buried where he was found then dug up by animals doesn't work since the bag would have been drug over a stream coming out then onto the road all the while the body still remained in the woods. Also, too many people claimed the body couldn't have been there the whole time because they had been. Furthermore, the extra phone lines that were run to the Lindbergh's ran very near that spot too. That's something to consider when weighing Jack's point about buzzards, and because the State Police specifically patrolled these lines to prevent or catch the Press who they believed might (or would) attempt to tap them.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 25, 2016 12:30:23 GMT -5
That's a reasonable hypothesis, Michael. Aren't the woods off the main road rather like lowlands, below the surrounding hills, thus likely catch-basins for water, especially rain or overflowing streams? This is my sense of the area: a rugged landscape. If so, just about anything not heavy or nailed down (so to speak) would likely splash around. This would be a poor location if one wanted to hide something unless it was buried deep beneath the surface.
Then there would have been all those people searching around that area in the days and weeks after the kidnapping. Searching for clues, which would mean a lot of dirt, rocks and leaves would be turned over. You also mentioned the Press. That would be a good location to catch a glimpse of the goings-on at the Lindbergh's, not that far away. The changing seasons, starting in late March, followed in all likelihood by April rain, would also play a role in altering things. Vultures, indeed!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 25, 2016 23:58:35 GMT -5
Regarding the theory recently discussed that Charlie's body possibly wasn't at his final resting place from the time of the crime until perhaps shortly before he was found - there's been the question - why would the kidnapper bring him back? Remember how Richard Hauptmann brought his prison uniform back to the steps of the prison after his escape? It could be that that act was etched into Richard's mind as a way of finalizing the crime. So he returned the body to near the crime scene, and maybe threw the thumb-guard up the drive at the same time.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 26, 2016 1:20:20 GMT -5
About the above statement, I am aware that Hauptmann returned his prison uniform so he wouldn't be accused of stealing it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 26, 2016 2:25:57 GMT -5
The prison uniform example is kind of silly. If nothing else, it shows him to be a somewhat honest guy who is looking into his future. Yes, he stole food and a little money but that was to survive. It was very, very common in post-war Germany and people were doing things they never would normally do.
Nevertheless, if one is to believe Hauptmann was a lone wolf, either he was a master criminal who managed to plan and execute one of the most incredible cases in the 20th century (one that even the most expert gangs would have trouble pulling off) or he's a bumbling criminal with incredible luck. It can't really be both. Considering there's no way luck could allow him to execute this crime, it must be the latter. Given this, nobody of Hauptmann's supposed calibre would bring back the most famous corpse in the world at that point to - essentially - the scene of the crime.
It's far more likely that somebody wanted that body to be found. Why? There's only one reason I can think of: So there could be no further attempts at extortion.
The leaps and bounds one must go through to believe that he was a lone wolf and/or that there was nobody from the house involved whatsoever is always pretty staggering to me. Why else would a would-be kidnapper show up on a night that the family wasn't even supposed to be there (this alone eliminates the idea there was a lot of prep work on lone wolf's part), at the peak time of the evening when most people would be both awake and at home then? Even once they arrive, there wasn't even a hint of confusion or wandering around to find the nursery's whereabouts. There's not even any footprints approaching the house. That wooden walkway was followed and from that vantage point, they couldn't even see into the child's room to see if someone was in there. They knew exactly when and where to go in advance. It just so happens that said location featured the only window in the house where the shutters were "warped" and the window unlocked.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2016 7:11:31 GMT -5
About the above statement, I am aware that Hauptmann returned his prison uniform so he wouldn't be accused of stealing it. We've got to hit this from all sides to see what the best answer can be when the dust settles. Let's look at it this way: Concerning Hauptmann returning the uniform I agree with USC that act clearly indicates he's considering the future. Now "if" he's the guy who "returned" the child what does that tell us? It could all be apples and oranges perhaps but still something to think about. It's far more likely that somebody wanted that body to be found. Why? There's only one reason I can think of: So there could be no further attempts at extortion. It sure looks like that from where I'm standing. The leaps and bounds one must go through to believe that he was a lone wolf and/or that there was nobody from the house involved whatsoever is always pretty staggering to me. Why else would a would-be kidnapper show up on a night that the family wasn't even supposed to be there (this alone eliminates the idea there was a lot of prep work on lone wolf's part), at the peak time of the evening when most people would be both awake and at home then? Even once they arrive, there wasn't even a hint of confusion or wandering around to find the nursery's whereabouts. There's not even any footprints approaching the house. That wooden walkway was followed and from that vantage point, they couldn't even see into the child's room to see if someone was in there. They knew exactly when and where to go in advance. It just so happens that said location featured the only window in the house where the shutters were "warped" and the window unlocked. Couldn't have said it better myself. We aren't alone in this - the Police saw it too.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 26, 2016 12:30:10 GMT -5
While I agree that the likelihood of such a lucky streak as a lone wolf type would have needed to have pulled off the kidnapping as successfully as he did is unlikely to happen there is something in the boldness of the abduction itself that suggests that someone did know something of if not the daily comings and goings of the Lindberghs,--though possible, I suppose--but of the household habits of everyone who was likely to be home on any given weeknight.
Leaving aside the fact that the Lindberghs were indeed home, whoever approached the house and entered needed to have some knowledge of the punctilios of its inhabitants, such as the fact that once they settled down in the early evening they did not, as a rule, run upstairs and play with the child, shower him with kisses, give him attention. When he was put to bed, that was it. This is not always the case with families.
If there was someone standing outside, casing the joint, so to speak, he had to have had some prior knowledge,--inside dope?--that those people sitting, chatting, playing cards, drinking brandy or whatever, were going to stay there for a fairly long period, by which I mean downstairs.
They did look in on the child later on, but by that time he was gone. Split second timing on the part of the kidnapper or good luck? I'd say the former. If not seconds, minutes. When we look back on the LKC it's easy to see it as all of a piece, as in a.) happened, therefore b.) followed. Well, yes, if we're discussing the discovery that CAL, Jr. was missing. It's logical to assume that the police would soon be notified no matter what the kidnap note said, though the note might have slowed down the action somewhat given its admonitions.
But the timing, the timing of the event. Even a clever, seasoned master criminal would have to have somehow gained sufficient information to know that after a certain hour in the evening the coast was clear, and this could only be known by observation over a fairly long period or information gleaned from someone on the "inside".
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 26, 2016 13:48:45 GMT -5
Well, your three comments are of course completely correct. But, they prove exactly that there was little or no preparation for The Lindbergh Crime because: IF THE KIDNAPPER WAS AWARE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE FAMILY, HE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN BEEN THERE ON A TUESDAY NIGHT. Hauptmann was there on a Tuesday night because it was his wife's night to work and he wasn't missed at home. He was seen by Lupica that evening - a lone man in a car like BRH's with a ladder in the car. The fact that he chose the correct window is immaterial (a red herring); he could have got in no matter what window he chose. . He may have known of the household habits from newspaper stories - even if he didn't though it didn't matter - in & out quickly. Lindbergh is very lucky he didn't catch him or there'd be two dead CALs.
We could go down all the facts and each one points to an unprepared amateur who got lucky because, in part, of unusual circumstances. The low ransom, two meetings with intermediary, bad passing of money when it got down to the hard to launder bills. The kidnapper did some good things too, not getting caught for about two years.
If there was more than one kidnapper, two cars, they would have taken the ladder away.
I think Hauptmann had a concealed place to put the body (false bottom of something) so he was covered for that when going back home, and perhaps that's why the ladder was left behind. Kina' hard to hide a ladder. His concealed place for the body is probably where he hid it until he returned it to Mount Rose to finalize the crime.
He certainly had no means of maintaining Charlie and the child was just collateral damage. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, and who knows how many machine-gunner Hauptmann had killed.
If you look into it, Hauptmann had lies ready for everything. For instance said he had no more gold bills, but the lies weren't accepted and he was looked at more closely (garage dismantled for example) and so was caught and proven guilty.
In eighty years no other name has surfaced with any proof that they had anything to do with the crime. Anna probably had more to do with the kidnapping than Nosovisky (like almost zero.) Another book or news of a confession (there have been about 200 confessions of The Lindbergh Crime) or some kind of planted evidence (such as the table which led nowhere) is just going to give Buffs something to talk about for a while.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 26, 2016 16:02:35 GMT -5
Well, your three comments are of course completely correct. But, they prove exactly that there was little or no preparation for The Lindbergh Crime because: IF THE KIDNAPPER WAS AWARE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE FAMILY, HE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN BEEN THERE ON A TUESDAY NIGHT. Hauptmann was there on a Tuesday night because it was his wife's night to work and he wasn't missed at home. He was seen by Lupica that evening - a lone man in a car like BRH's with a ladder in the car. The fact that he chose the correct window is immaterial (a red herring); he could have got in no matter what window he chose. . He may have known of the household habits from newspaper stories - even if he didn't though it didn't matter - in & out quickly. Lindbergh is very lucky he didn't catch him or there'd be two dead CALs. We could go down all the facts and each one points to an unprepared amateur who got lucky because, in part, of unusual circumstances. The low ransom, two meetings with intermediary, bad passing of money when it got down to the hard to launder bills. The kidnapper did some good things too, not getting caught for about two years. If there was more than one kidnapper, two cars, they would have taken the ladder away. I think Hauptmann had a concealed place to put the body (false bottom of something) so he was covered for that when going back home, and perhaps that's why the ladder was left behind. Kina' hard to hide a ladder. His concealed place for the body is probably where he hid it until he returned it to Mount Rose to finalize the crime. He certainly had no means of maintaining Charlie and the child was just collateral damage. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, and who knows how many machine-gunner Hauptmann had killed. If you look into it, Hauptmann had lies ready for everything. For instance said he had no more gold bills, but the lies weren't accepted and he was looked at more closely (garage dismantled for example) and so was caught and proven guilty. In eighty years no other name has surfaced with any proof that they had anything to do with the crime. Anna probably had more to do with the kidnapping than Nosovisky (like almost zero.) Another book or news of a confession (there have been about 200 confessions of The Lindbergh Crime) or some kind of planted evidence (such as the table which led nowhere) is just going to give Buffs something to talk about for a while. See you're trying to have it both ways. Either Hauptmann was prepared or he not. The household habits, were he to pick them up from the papers, would indicate the family shouldn't have been there that night. They themselves weren't even on planning to be there. The odds of that night being the one he chose are astronomical. Then from a logical perspective, no kidnapper would pick the busiest time of the night in the house to strike. Let's look at the footprint evidence, as I mentioned above. You have a limited amount of prints (more than one person), walking away from the house. How many do you have walking towards it? Zero. The kidnapper(s) stayed on that narrow boardwalk and from that vantage point, they had no way to see actually into the room, it could have been filled with Mrs. Lindbergh and a butler. They must have had SOME knowledge of when the child was not to be disturbed AND which room was to be the one to go to. The unsecured window is not a red herring. Come on. If this were any other case, it would be clear as day. Do you think a kidnapper would have taken the chance of scaling that ladder unless they knew exactly which room the nursery was AND that there was nobody in there? None of this would be possible under the Hauptmann was just a lucky lone wolf acting out of last-minute desparation. Finally, the ladder, as mentioned, was left behind for a reason. If the plan was just to leave it behind or it was too burdensome to carry, why carry it so many feet from the house that it was visible? Why not leave the leave it against the house so it wouldn't be IMMEDIATELY seen? Obviously the whole thing was, to some degree, staged. Everything was placed just as it was to essentially say "LOOK! WE WENT THIS WAY! DONT LOOK OVER THERE!"
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 27, 2016 15:38:32 GMT -5
Wow, that's a huge stretch! Let's try "J. J. Faulkner" for starters. Isn't the fact that he had nearly $3,000 in ransom money in his possession kind of suggestive that he was at least connected to Cemetery John (whom jack7 smugly knows for certain was was Hauptmann). There's proof in Behn's book (if you believe it) that "Faulkner" was Nosovitsky. Behn found "J. J. Faulkner" among the many aliases for Nosovitsky in the NYPD files.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 27, 2016 15:47:08 GMT -5
You are right on target there, trojanusc. But, furthermore, there is the stubborn fact that it is just about physically impossible for any person acting alone (or maybe even with help from inside) to have entered the nursery via the discarded ladder and to have exited onto that ladder coming down with the baby. We know that from the fact that tests were done by the NJSP prior to the Hauptmann trial, and none of the officers were able to perform that feat.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2016 16:56:24 GMT -5
Anybody could have written J.J. Faulkner. It could have been Hauptmann telling someone he couldn't write and having him write it for him. Nosovitsky would have been stupider that I've judged him (blatant captured bigamist) if he used one of his known aliases in connection with Lindbergh crime bills. FYI, there was no J.J. Faulkner!
There's lots of evidence that implicates Hauptmann and nobody else has surfaced in all these years.
Some things about the crime will never be figured out. There is no why in true crime, there is only is.
You Buffs sure stick together. Remind me of professional wrestling fans.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 27, 2016 18:56:54 GMT -5
Agreed that there was probably no REAL "J. J. Faulkner", at least no real "J. J. Faulkner" who signed the deposit slip. Law enforcement concentrated on trying to find someone with the REAL name "J. J. Faulkner," but couldn't. So "J. J. Faulkner" on the deposit slip was someone's alias. Nosovitsky could very well have used it for the FIRST time there, so you can't presume it was a KNOWN alias. We know that Noso also used other aliases with first two initials "J. J.", so the "J. J. Faulkner" could be a new alias with a similar pattern.
As for the possibility of Hauptmann asking someone else to sign "J. J. Faulkner" for him, no one could have done that without being an accessory to the Lindbergh crime (at least the extortion part) himself. As I said, whoever signed that deposit slip with the Lindbergh ransom cash is a suspect, one of quite a number of suspects beside Hauptmann!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2016 20:05:13 GMT -5
Anybody could have written J.J. Faulkner. It could have been Hauptmann telling someone he couldn't write and having him write it for him. I've seen this excuse offered up before. It makes no sense if you believe Hauptmann wrote all of the Ransom Notes in a disguised hand. What's the difference here? If the teller remembers the guy who turned the slip in it leads to Hauptmann regardless. If someone wrote the slip for Hauptmann, and they were innocent, why wouldn't they come forward so they could collect the reward money? People were lying to collect so this idea of fear was obviously trumped by the prospect of wealth. There's lots of evidence that implicates Hauptmann and nobody else has surfaced in all these years. Some things about the crime will never be figured out. There is no why in true crime, there is only is. Once the book comes out I believe you'll have a different position. Even on what's not addressed in my first volume - it will show there is a ton of information out there. The idea that it cannot be found or doesn't exist comes from those who do not look, or if they did - gave up too soon. I just found new material today and it's another piece of the puzzle. Now if I didn't have the other pieces it's meaningless...
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2016 0:14:36 GMT -5
Well, Michael, Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura and I are counting our money and looking forward to seeing what's in your book(s).
If that was the first time Noso used the J.J. Faulkner alias I doubt that he'd ever use it again. Behn said that he did, but I don't recall that he had an example or dates associated with it.
Whoever did the Faulkner alias was up to something illegal so would not want to be involved with the LC. Hauptmann might have told one of the Germans that he suspected he had some counterfeit money and once the guy wrote J.J. he would NOT want to become involved as a participant in the crime. Faulkner is probably a thing we'll never know more about although I have my hopes up. Every book though seems to promise shocking new information, and to date there's really been none that's helped to more solve that Lindbergh Crime!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 28, 2016 5:33:47 GMT -5
Well, Michael, Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura and I are counting our money and looking forward to seeing what's in your book(s). And I'm looking forward to you reading it. Whoever did the Faulkner alias was up to something illegal so would not want to be involved with the LC. Hauptmann might have told one of the Germans that he suspected he had some counterfeit money and once the guy wrote J.J. he would NOT want to become involved as a participant in the crime. Faulkner is probably a thing we'll never know more about although I have my hopes up. The problem with that theory, in my mind, is it still doesn't make any sense. On one hand you supposedly have a Lone-Wolf Mastermind/Kidnapper/Extortionist doing everything by himself, and then, for some unexplained reason he needs help. Why? Because he wasn't "J. J. Faulkner" so we need this type of excuse for that theory to "fit." Did Hauptmann write every Ransom Note? Did he spend ransom money without disguise driving his very own car? So now we have this other "German" being afraid because he was involved in some other crime. Do you see how this is beginning to spin out of control? For me, all of the facts only make sense if this whole matter wasn't a Lone-Wolf operation. Faulkner is probably a thing we'll never know more about although I have my hopes up. I've got some new information but it's not in the 1st book. It will all tie in though. In fact, it all seems to tie in. Every book though seems to promise shocking new information, and to date there's really been none that's helped to more solve that Lindbergh Crime! I'm not a writer and this whole process hasn't been fun for me. Being told something will be forthcoming in (3) weeks and it's now (8) without it is maddening. I realize how bad this makes me look but it's the situation I find myself in without any way to remedy it. That said, I've always considered writing since I kept finding new information that everyone seems to want to know. Information not in the books, or incorrectly in the books. I swear to you I was hoping Richard's had all of that information in his so that I wouldn't have to do this to myself. He did introduce the world to Conlon but that was as far as it went for me. And even there it appears he stopped at one source. But when you look at who this guy was, and ask yourself why he was never mentioned before - think of my book.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2016 14:31:14 GMT -5
Well, I've got my hopes up!
I guess we'll have to wait 'till we hear more about what you just mentioned, and all that.
I think Hauptmann sold Faulkner (an alias of course) some very bad money at a big discount is why we've never heard more from or about him. There's several possibilities which have been mentioned over the years for Faulkner, but we'll never know unless you've got some answers.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2016 15:47:04 GMT -5
Regarding that Faulkner "deposit slip" which was really an exchange, there were several larger amounts of gold bills which turned out to be ransom money turned in by unknown people at about that same time. Richard probably figured he got burned on some notes which became nearly impassable, and sold off a lot. Most banks didn't even require a name for the switch of monies.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 28, 2016 23:24:21 GMT -5
Don't worry about it, Michael, nobody thinks that publishing delays reflect on you at all.
But I am sorry if I missing the obvious here, and I am sure I am revealing my ignorance here, but by Conlon, are you referring to the morgue attendant? After your post, I did a search of the board, but there aren't too many entries for Conlon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2016 5:17:54 GMT -5
Regarding that Faulkner "deposit slip" which was really an exchange, there were several larger amounts of gold bills which turned out to be ransom money turned in by unknown people at about that same time. Richard probably figured he got burned on some notes which became nearly impassable, and sold off a lot. Yet, all of the stories about money being sold are attached to Fisch. None to Hauptmann. Not saying it wasn't possible, but unusual nothing attached to him emerged if what you say happened.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2016 5:42:03 GMT -5
Don't worry about it, Michael, nobody thinks that publishing delays reflect on you at all.
But I am sorry if I missing the obvious here, and I am sure I am revealing my ignorance here, but by Conlon, are you referring to the morgue attendant? After your post, I did a search of the board, but there aren't too many entries for Conlon. Thanks Feathers. That's the guy. He's mentioned in Richard's book on pages 99-100. I discovered he was present in the Morgue but never mentioned it on the board. Over the years I've accumulated tons of stuff like this. Some I've mentioned only to be quickly forgotten or dismissed by those who read it, but much I never have. With Conlon we see a person who was present and witnessed something - but no one ever heard of him so it's like he was not there. He's finally introduced but used to further a fact that's not true - and what he actually did see doesn't make it into Richard's book. (There absolutely was no scrotal tissue on that corpse). To find out what he did or did not see there are 3 to 4 sources that need to be consulted - not just 1. I know it's easy for me to say, I live near the NJSP Archives, but it's true.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 29, 2016 8:40:56 GMT -5
Regarding that Faulkner "deposit slip" which was really an exchange, there were several larger amounts of gold bills which turned out to be ransom money turned in by unknown people at about that same time. Richard probably figured he got burned on some notes which became nearly impassable, and sold off a lot. Most banks didn't even require a name for the switch of monies. "Larger amounts of gold bills which turned out to be ransom money turned in by unknown people at about that same time"? If there was, why has no one heard about such a large sum of ransom gold bills turned in? Would have been at least close to $3,000 and would have been even more newsworthy than the "Faulkner" deposit. As to most banks not requiring a name for the switch of monies, I doubt that. Remember that these switches were for the most part required by a new federal law. The federal government was abandoning the gold standard. So it would seem likely that to enforce that law, some record had to be made that the depositor was in compliance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2016 10:48:13 GMT -5
Michael,
I agree with feathers. Those publishing delays are not a negative reflection on you. Everything that you are having published has to be the correct way you want it communicated. You don't want any errors and you don't want what you are conveying about your material altered or misrepresented by any editing. You want the final product to be exactly as it should be. That's all good. Your first volume will be worth the wait!!
About the J.J. Faulkner deposit. When Lloyd Fisher cross-examined Frank J. Wilson, Treasury Agent, at the Flemington Trial he asked Wilson about this deposit. During this line of questioning The Court asked Mr. Wilson if he saw the deposit slip signed by J.J. Faulkner. Agent Wilson responded he did. When asked by The Court what the amount was he said $2,980. Mr. Fisher then asked the State to produce that slip so that he (Fisher) might present it to the witness for identification. Wilentz responsed he needs a little advance notice when something is wanted. Fisher then says to Wilentz, "You mean it isn't in court now?" Wilentz responses that he has whatever is needed if it is just asked for. Mr. Fisher then says to Wilentz, "You will produce that for the next session?" Wilentz responds with "If we have it you will have it."
Michael,
Did Wilentz have possession of that deposit slip at the time of the trial? Did Wilentz ever produce that deposit slip for the defense? I have been looking over the Exhibit list and I cannot find it on there!! Are you able to comment on this? I know that you will have information going into one of your books on the Faulkner angle. I am not trying to pry into that. Honest!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 29, 2016 13:42:25 GMT -5
Hurtleable:
The other larger exchanges of ransom money for regular bills are listed in the FBI Files book about the case. None of the transactions has an I.D. of the bank customer or any writing (exchange or deposit slip) about it because, as I stated, it was only the policy of the "Faulkner" bank to do that. Exchangers are listed as unknown.
I've discussed this issue before on here but possibly it was before you were involved on this forum.
Bottom line is that there is a possibility that J.J. Faulkner had nothing to do with the crime, but was only a ransom money passer.
If you look at that FBI book check out a man who came into a bank and said he had a bunch of five dollar bills he wanted to trade in. I've always thought he sounded a lot like Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2016 5:29:36 GMT -5
Did Wilentz have possession of that deposit slip at the time of the trial? Did Wilentz ever produce that deposit slip for the defense? I have been looking over the Exhibit list and I cannot find it on there!! Are you able to comment on this? I know that you will have information going into one of your books on the Faulkner angle. I am not trying to pry into that. Honest! I might be mistaken but as I recall it wasn't produced and I know it was something the State didn't want the Defense to know about. Like the footprint cast it was promised after being brought up by the Defense. Wilentz certainly had it available to him because the NJSP was having Osborn make comparisons against it as late as November 1934. It's a hard thing to explain but it was almost like the State was allowed to hide evidence or protect against it by keeping it from the Defense without any fear of penalty or punishment. Take the chisel as an example. Before the trial started the Defense heard they had this evidence and believed it was found in the house. Pope requested Judge Trenchard to "impound" it so the Defense could examine it prior to the Trial. Trenchard denied this request saying the Defense had no right to "pry" into the State's case, just as the State had no right to "pry" into the Defense's. So what we see here is the Defense didn't even have the most basic evidence available to them while the State was eavesdropping on Hauptmann and his Lawyers, hiring away a Defense Attorney to come over to the State as a "Special Prosecutor," planting Moles among the Defense Witnesses, Tampering with Evidence, and Threatening Witnesses - among many other things. I don't make these accusations lightly because there is evidence all over the place from many sources that this was going on. They would even use the Democrat to plant fake stories to scare witnesses or mislead the Defense. In the Prosecutions defense, as I researched this conduct I discovered it all was not unique to this case and had occurred in previous cases as well.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 30, 2016 7:51:38 GMT -5
Well, again I've never heard of any bank exchange of ransom gold notes totaling more than $3,000 in a lump sum, even if the exchangers were unknown. Can you find the date(s), amount(s), and bank(s) involved in any such transaction(s)? I don't think they ever happened in anywhere near such a large amount as Faulkner's exchange. My guess is that the vast majority of such transactions were just one or a few gold notes at a time.
BTW, the "Faulkner" bank just happened to be FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, which is essentially the federal government. Not sure if it was at the time, but it could have been the largest bank in the whole country (it would be the largest today). So "Faulkner" for some reason didn't want to hide the exchange, but rather sought publicity. Kind of a cocky move, it would seem. He was taunting authorities, saying find me if you can. Just as "Faulkner" did a few years later, when he wrote his letter to Governor Hoffman "clearing" the convicted Hauptmann. Again, gall.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 11:04:29 GMT -5
Just for the record, the Faulkner deposit slip was in the files of the NJSP at Trenton in 1982. Kennedy and I held it in our own little hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 13:28:21 GMT -5
Well, Well, Well. Thank you Michael and Dave. You have confirmed that Wilentz had the deposit slip and chose not to release it to the defense. Wilentz had to protect his position of a lone-wolf perpetrator. That deposit slip could have been used to create doubt about Hauptmann doing this alone. I guess withholding this deposit slip goes to the "simpler time" way of thinking about this case. There were no discovery rights in 1935 so evidence could be hidden. Doesn't make it right to do it, though!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2016 14:24:14 GMT -5
No, each exchange was more than just a few bills. I don't have that book where I'm living right now, but you might find something in old posts - I know I've discussed it before. Also the book's probably on AZ for a few bucks.
The larger transactions were at least two besides the Faulkner one, and at about the same time, and each say, eight hundred to a thousand dollars.
This of course doesn't prove anything - just fodder to fill pages of researchers books. Interesting tidbits about the crime. There's no evidence that Faulkner or the unknown note passers were accomplices or were not accomplices of Hauptmann.
I still believe the Faulkner note was written by a bank clerk who decided not to become involved or get into trouble, but just like for Faulkner him(her)self, can't prove anything. The clerks didn't even remember if JJF was a man or a woman.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 14:51:49 GMT -5
Jack you are, as they say "spot on," but always remember, a conspiracy is far more fun. And guess what, you can't disprove a conspiracy. Bought jurior, and inside help. It don't get any better than that.
Like I always say: "Simple Crime, Simpler Time!"
And Jack, my good friend, don't ever forget that guys like us, we live rent free in their heads!
Stay strong!
|
|