jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2016 16:15:56 GMT -5
It seemed to me that regarding the Faulkner exchange, someone passing very bad money wouldn't want to call attention to themselves by using an incorrect form - possibly if they knew ahead of time, would even wait until they at least had a blank sheet of notepaper for their name. An employee (clerk) however, especially on this busiest of days for gold bills would just grab whatever was nearby to jot the customer's name as stated by them.
Arbeit Macht Frei!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 30, 2016 16:40:02 GMT -5
The clerk was busier than the couch by the auditions stage at the Weather Channel!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 30, 2016 16:43:58 GMT -5
In that era, the large majority of bank customers, especially big bank customers, were men, so chances are very good that "Faulkner" was a man. In fact, if "Faulkner" happened to be a woman, chances are much better that the clerk would have remembered her, since women customers, especially with large deposits, were so rare.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2016 17:00:51 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! If there's a conspiracy and one doesn't like that idea then a strategy might be to make light of it as if that invalidates the facts. But it does not. If a Juror was bribed, as happened in this case, and one doesn't like it - then make light of it as if it didn't occur? But it did occur. So what's more fun? Revealing newly discovered information or trying to invalidate the truth by making light of it as if it never happened? I say let the chips fall where they may. It may have been a simpler time but nothing about this crime was simple. What might be is to just let the facts point to the truth.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 17:38:32 GMT -5
What are you waiting for Michael? If you have what you want everyone to think you have, go to the New York Times, NBC, CBS, FOX! Big stories sell books. Keep the website informed and sell 25 copies. Inform the world sell thousands. If you have a publisher great. If your self-publishing, you'll have more in common with my friend Wayne Jones than you could ever think.
You have to set your hair on fire and go. Unless....... You want the top slot go. Go now. "F" the galleys. Put up or---- you know the rest.
You've been called.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2016 18:43:41 GMT -5
The first book is coming out soon. I don't care who reads it and who does not. But once it's out there will be no diversionary excuses or catch phrases that will work. The research has been done and the footnotes back it up. One thing for sure, the simple crime position will come to a screeching halt.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 18:59:45 GMT -5
Exactly what I expected.
No guts no glory.
Hold on, there's a storm a comin'!
Granted there are some professions where you don't get a peek, but this different.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2016 19:18:35 GMT -5
Exactly what I expected. No guts no glory. Hold on, there's a storm a comin'! Granted there are some professions where you don't get a peak, but this different. Who cares about glory? It's about the facts. History records some things that aren't even true, that certain people were in certain places they were not, said certain things they did not, and did certain things they could not. What's the problem with simply correcting the record without the ulterior motives? No advanced copies if I can help it. Also, if I have anything to say about it then it will be a very le book. It's just about the facts - not about money. Very few people can claim to be an Expert in this case although many do. I am sure they'll try the hustle they pulled with the other books but it won't work with mine. It's a simple write, and has taken almost 16 years of research. This is the first volume, and the facts can be interpreted any way the Reader wants to. But they cannot be denied. Claiming because I won't type it out here means something, or doesn't, that's fine too because I don't care about that either to be honest. But if someone says something isn't true or may not be then I will speak up and put in my two cents. A Juror was bribed. Anyone who has followed me knows I try to qualify things to allow for possibilities. In the case of the Juror being bribed it's 100%. There's no wiggle room whatsoever. So when you suggest it isn't true then I absolutely have to correct you.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 19:32:01 GMT -5
Saints and Footnotes!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2016 19:37:56 GMT -5
No Saints but lots of footnotes. Well maybe one if you count Lupica - he was an honest guy.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 30, 2016 23:47:59 GMT -5
There were many who found him a disappointment. (NJSP) I also found several folks who lived in Hopewell in the 1930's who were still there in the 1980's who didn't have a lot of nice things to say about him. I was introduced to one guy who took me to an area just off the road that runs in front of the Lindbergh house where Ben use to hang out. He (Ben) shouldn't be on the " Saints " list for this case.
But, somehow I think you already knew that about Ben.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 1, 2016 3:19:57 GMT -5
Gotta keep the CTs honest.
At the culmination of Garrison's JFK probe (and this is no BS) Kennedy is shot at by seventeen people in front of the TSBD!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2016 5:11:33 GMT -5
There were many who found him a disappointment. (NJSP) I also found several folks who lived in Hopewell in the 1930's who were still there in the 1980's who didn't have a lot of nice things to say about him. I was introduced to one guy who took me to an area just off the road that runs in front of the Lindbergh house where Ben use to hang out. He (Ben) shouldn't be on the " Saints " list for this case. But, somehow I think you already knew that about Ben. From everything I have on him, and it's a lot, he's giving an honest account. Even when he's pressured to say something others were lying about he would not do it. Now when I read about what everyone else was doing then he's the closest thing to it. I've always said all involved had varying degrees of integrity going as far as their moral compass would allow - as it relates to this case. You had Troopers selling Crime Scene Photos - even one selling diamonds to a witness! But I saw only truth and consistency from Lupica. Could I write a Biography on him? No. Could I list all the hearsay, gossip, or jealous remarks coming out of Hopewell in the 1980s? No. But do I know about Ben as it involves this crime? Yes. Do I have everything on everyone? No. Now the big question is: Does anyone else? And if not, might I know things they do not?
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jul 1, 2016 14:38:07 GMT -5
Right. You bet!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2016 16:34:30 GMT -5
My point is no one knows everything because it's just not possible. That's why I like this Board so much because we learn from each other. A quick story to exemplify: I was at a good friends house 2 weeks ago to review some newly discovered material. As I went through the documents I saw a name that meant nothing to me. Nothing. From all the years combing through material - names that I've seen, particularly at the NJSP Archives, usually ring bells when I see them again. This name I am willing to bet isn't there anywhere. So seeing it what do you think I did? Skip over it? I read it and being honest I believed I was wasting my time but I also know sometimes new things can be developed from any source. As it turns out the guy was yet another PI who worked for Fawcett. So the first thing this document taught me was the Fawcett must have hired a small Army of Investigators. Now I know why he wanted money before turning over his files! The second thing it taught me was the identity of the mysterious "Fritz" that is often mocked as Hauptmann's fictional creation. If I had skipped over the documents thinking I knew everyone/everything - I would have learned nothing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2016 14:26:59 GMT -5
Hurtelable & Forum:
In addition to the Faulkner exchange of 5/2/33 at the Federal Reserve Bank, the following Lindbergh Ransom gold bill transactions were received at that bank-
4/29/33 24 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Chemical Nat'l. Bank, NYC 5/1/33 26 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Chemical Nat'l. Bank, NYC 5/2/33 50 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Manufacturer's Trust Co., NYC
Each transaction identified the teller who completed it, but provided no information as to who exchanged the money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2016 20:14:58 GMT -5
In addition to the Faulkner exchange of 5/2/33 at the Federal Reserve Bank, the following Lindbergh Ransom gold bill transactions were received at that bank- 4/29/33 24 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Chemical Nat'l. Bank, NYC 5/1/33 26 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Chemical Nat'l. Bank, NYC 5/2/33 50 ten dollar gold certificates traced to the Manufacturer's Trust Co., NYC Each transaction identified the teller who completed it, but provided no information as to who exchanged the money. The differences between these and the Faulkner matter has to do with the fact they were able to identify the deposit slip in that exchange but had absolutely no idea which slip was attached to your above referenced deposits. Take for example the 50 found at the Federal Reserve on May 1st. These bills were traced back to deposits on either April 28th or 29th at the Manufacturer's Trust Co. Investigation revealed that LeRoy Clarkson was the teller who placed the money in the strip on April 27th. When interviewed it could be shown that numerous deposits of over $500 or more were made on that day to him. As a result he couldn't remember who made the $500 deposit in question. So in reality the Faulkner situation was unique.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 5, 2016 21:34:23 GMT -5
Michael, I am assuming that none of these other slips were signed. Was there a requirement that the exchange be signed over a certain dollar amount?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2016 22:33:21 GMT -5
The Faulkner transaction was different because that complete exchange was made at the Federal Reserve Bank. The deposit slip was simply paper used to write the customer's name as required by the bank, no deposit was made. The other banks mentioned above (and many others by the way - but with smaller amounts) did not require the customer's name to exchange money.
The reason they are called deposits is because the bills were found in deposits that the smaller banks made at the Fed. The banks had no idea where the ransom bills came from.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2016 5:35:30 GMT -5
Michael, I am assuming that none of these other slips were signed. Was there a requirement that the exchange be signed over a certain dollar amount? I am not sure about being signed. That's an interesting question because I've always had in mind they were but can't remember if that's in writing somewhere. I know the deposit slips, prior to the Faulkner exchange, had the handwriting being checked against the Ransom Notes. The Faulkner transaction was different because that complete exchange was made at the Federal Reserve Bank. The deposit slip was simply paper used to write the customer's name as required by the bank, no deposit was made. The other banks mentioned above (and many others by the way - but with smaller amounts) did not require the customer's name to exchange money. I don't think is correct. Here too I'll have to check but I believe all deposits/exchanges required a slip with a name on it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 6, 2016 6:15:16 GMT -5
You're right. At the Fed. to exchange money (gold bills or not) required a name, but no I.D. - may require that now - I havn't been in a Federal Reserve bank in a while. Other banks (Chemical Bank, etc.) did not even require a name and most still don't although now they like you to have an account, but legally they have to be of service to the community (beyond just making money) if they call themselves a bank. Savings and Loans, and other crypto-banks (credit unions, etc.) don't have the same regulations.
This has been gone over before and it's (including Faulkner) not particularly important. Nothing new has come out about Faulkner in eighty years.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 6, 2016 12:03:17 GMT -5
You obviously neglect the work of Noel Behn in the 1990s, who identified "J. J. Faulkner" as Jacob Nosovitsky, and gave a good argument to prove it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 12:07:29 GMT -5
For what it is worth, here is Treasury Agent Frank Wilson's court testimony about how the creating of deposit slips worked regarding gold certificates:
Trial Testimony Pages 929-930 - Frank J Wilson, Treasury Agent on stand. Cross examination of witness by C. Lloyd Fisher.
Q(Fisher) - Now, Mr. Wilson, I understand you to say that a man could take gold, after the embargo was declared, to a bank and simply pass it through a window, without any formality or without writing anything or leaving any memoranda; is that correct? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Q(Fisher) - And is that true of any sums of money? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Do you say that a man could take in $2,980 as much money as that and pass it across the bar without an memoranda being given or exchanged? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir. Larger amounts than that.
Q(Fisher) - Wasn't it the rule that if any money over a thousand dollars was turned in, that an exchange slip must be executed? A(Wilson) - No, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Giving the name and address of the party turning the money in? A(Wilson) - No sir.
Q(Fisher) - You say that was not the rule? A(Wilson) - That was not the rule.
Q(Fisher) - No such instructions went out to the various bankers of the country? A(Wilson) - Not-no, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Requiring them to take a memorandum from any person who exchanged more than one thousand dollars? A(Wilson) - No, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Why do you suppose, Mr. Wilson, the Federal Reserve - why the Federal Reserve Bank require this man to make out a slip, a transfer slip? A(Wilson) - They requested all people making deposits there to do so, but that was not done in other banks throughout the country.
Q(Fisher) - Well, then, so far as that particular United States Bank is concerned, it was necessary to exchange a memorandum when you exchanged money, gold money? A(Wilson) - In that particular bank.
Q(Fisher) - Yes, so that there is an exception to your general rule, then, is that correct? A(Wilson) - Yes sir.
Q(Fisher) - Well, now, how about other exceptions over the country, do you know if any other bank required the same thing? A(Wilson) - I don't know of any other banks that did that.
Q(Fisher) - But you do know this particular bank did. A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
If Frank Wilson's testimony is a true representation and that bank was the only New York bank requiring deposit slips be written out, then it does make the selection of that Federal Reserve Bank very suspicious considering the depositor knew it was Lindbergh ransom money. Why not go somewhere else, anywhere else in New York to make that exchange without the need to fill out any deposit slip?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 6, 2016 14:24:39 GMT -5
One possibility might be that "Faulkner" mistakenly thought that the Federal Reserve Bank was the only bank where he could exchange the gold notes, since news stories referring to the new policy of mandatory exchanges of gold notes for fiat currency (over $200, I believe) might generally mention the Federal Reserve banks as the ultimate retainer of the gold notes, which it was. Furthermore, this was a time of multiple bank failures, so depositors and exchangers might think that a Federal Reserve Bank would be the most secure place to go.
Once at the teller window, "Faulkner" might not have wanted to make a scene by exiting quickly when told he would have to fill out a slip, so he decided to cooperate by writing a phony name and address on his slip.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 6, 2016 15:39:47 GMT -5
Regarding Nosovitsky, Behn's original investigation of him had the motive that Noso had been cheated out of $ 50,000 payment owed to him - cheated by Dwight Morrow Sr., and that's why he executed the Lindbergh Kidnapping and extortion. In Behn's own words, that investigation "fell flat."
Behn then revived Noso for his "no smoking gun" look at Elisabeth Morrow as the accidental or intentional murderer of Charlie, Nosovitsky being an extortionist who got involved and got the money.
There are facts about the case which make each of these theories impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2016 16:02:12 GMT -5
You're right. At the Fed. to exchange money (gold bills or not) required a name, but no I.D. - may require that now - I havn't been in a Federal Reserve bank in a while. Other banks (Chemical Bank, etc.) did not even require a name and most still don't although now they like you to have an account, but legally they have to be of service to the community (beyond just making money) if they call themselves a bank. Savings and Loans, and other crypto-banks (credit unions, etc.) don't have the same regulations. According to Finn, after the Pres. proclamation all NY Banks recorded the name and address of the depositors or exchangers over $100. I am still looking for a specific report I remember so I can quote it but if one looks at the investigations it proves what I am saying.... When it came down to Clarkson, Finn asked Lowe to give him a complete list of depositors from April 26 to April 28 at the Manufacturers Trust Company which Lowe did. For Chemical Bank Trust arrangements were made with " Mr. Yates to get a complete list of the depositors who had made deposits at his bank from the 26th of April to the 29th inclusive, so that in this way we are in hopes of arriving at some definite point whereby we can find out who made the deposit." Common sense tells us that's not possible if slips with names and addresses weren't necessary. Now as to the Federal Reserve Bank, Keaten said it was a rule there that upon depositing gold currency or gold certs the depositor/exchanger must make out the slip with name and address in their own handwriting. As far as this goes, I do not know if others banks had such a rule.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 6, 2016 16:23:26 GMT -5
Of course they kept track of deposits. The transactions in question were exchanges.
That quote sounds pretty convenient and questionable since Keaton had absolutely nothing to do with the bank.
Lindbergh money was small potatoes compared to the cash the Fed. dealt with. It's funny they caught what they did, and as you can see from this testimony that other banks weren't particularly concerned either. Most of the bills passed them and were caught at the Fed.
I think it's highly unlikely that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would care about who wrote out an information slip for a money transfer. Would like to see more about that quick quote.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 6, 2016 18:52:38 GMT -5
Regarding Nosovitsky, Behn's original investigation of him had the motive that Noso had been cheated out of $ 50,000 payment owed to him - cheated by Dwight Morrow Sr., and that's why he executed the Lindbergh Kidnapping and extortion. In Behn's own words, that investigation "fell flat." Behn then revived Noso for his "no smoking gun" look at Elisabeth Morrow as the accidental or intentional murderer of Charlie, Nosovitsky being an extortionist who got involved and got the money. There are facts about the case which make each of these theories impossible. I've read Behn's book several times, but I don't recall the statement that investigation of Nosovitsky "fell flat," whatever that means. Can you cite the page of the paperback edition where he states that? It's more likely that Noso wasn't looked at closely at all, as a favor to him by the NYPD for informing them regarding other cases. Now what facts about the case rule out Noso as a possible extortionist? He didn't have to have the monetary revenge motive vs. Dwight Morrow Sr. in order to participate in this extortion, all he needed was greed. BTW, FWIW, Condon apparently mentioned Nosovitsky as a perp in the LKC on Condon's speaking tour, and was sued by Noso for defamation as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2016 19:13:41 GMT -5
Of course they kept track of deposits. The transactions in question were exchanges. When they spoke of deposits it does not mean that it excluded exchanges. It meant both transactions. That quote sounds pretty convenient and questionable since Keaton had absolutely nothing to do with the bank. That's just not true. Lt. Keaten and Wilson were partners during this time. The (3) people who knew the most about this angle were Lt. Finn, Wilson, and Lt. Keaten. Keaten 'said' this after his in person investigation at the Bank. He went, he investigated, and during that investigation that's what he was told. I think it's highly unlikely that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would care about who wrote out an information slip for a money transfer. Would like to see more about that quick quote. The quote comes after the $2990 of Ransom Money was discovered but before they determined it came from the J.J. Faulkner Slip. Espie's initials were on the straps so they knew it came from him: "Tieman stated at this time that Espie had been questioned but that they had been unable to get any information from him in regards to these bills, however, it is a rule of the Federal Reserve Bank that upon depositing any gold currency or gold certificates the depositor must make a deposit slip out in their own handwriting and give their address, and that they had immediately set girls working, sorting out the deposit slips for May 1st." Notice they are using "deposit" and "deposit slip" when in fact it's in reference to the exchange. For the purposes of this topic they were synonymous. References to the same action has been referred to in both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2016 19:19:55 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but check out how the J.J. Faulkner "exchange" slip is referred to in this report and also check out the author of the report and what he did:
|
|