|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2015 11:21:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2015 11:25:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 7:44:28 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the entire Faulkner letter. It is interesting to read. The person who wrote this letter had obviously followed the case and trial closely. I agree with your position that the Faulkner signature on the deposit slip and the Faulkner signature on the letter are not written by the same person.
How much investigative work did Gov. Hoffman have done in regards to this letter? Did he give it any serious consideration? Was he only interested in the signature or did he focus on any of the content of this letter and how the writer asserts Hauptmann of being innocent of the charge of murder?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2015 15:48:44 GMT -5
How much investigative work did Gov. Hoffman have done in regards to this letter? Did he give it any serious consideration? Was he only interested in the signature or did he focus on any of the content of this letter and how the writer asserts Hauptmann of being innocent of the charge of murder? Amy, It was more about J.J. Faulkner in total. That would include the letters (generally) in that category. Like Hurt has written in the past, Pelletreau looked at these letters the most.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 11:21:39 GMT -5
It was more about J.J. Faulkner in total. That would include the letters (generally) in that category. Like Hurt has written in the past, Pelletreau looked at these letters the most. When you say letters, generally, are you referring to more than just the Faulkner deposit slip and the letter to Gov. Hoffman? Are there other letters from J.J. Faulkner that Pelletreau had in his possession? Or was Pelletreau using letters Nosovitsky had written and comparing them to the J.J. Faulkner writings? I am aware that Pelletreau believed that Nosovitsky was the writer of the ransom notes but did he believe Noso wrote the Faulkner items also?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 11, 2015 16:18:09 GMT -5
According to Noel Behn (p. 19, paperback), Pelletreau's black box provided extensive samples of Nosovitsky's handwriting, as well as copies of all thirteen ransom notes, the Faulker bank receipt, and the Faulkner letters to Dr. Hudson and Governor Hoffman." (One problem here: the letter to Dr. Hudson was not signed "J. J. Faulkner," rather "Jhon.") Pelletreau believed that all of the unknown items were written by Nosovitsky. Behn disagrees with Pelletreau, stating that the first note ONLY was written by someone other than Noso.
In looking at the Faulkner letter to Gov. Hoffman from the point of view of a (hypothetical) English teacher looking over the paper of a student, one would have to give the writer a passing grade, which is consistent with my earlier-stated notion that Nosovitsky had learned to write pretty good English for an immigrant when the occasion called for it. This would also be consistent with several years of American schooling after he arrived here. However, among his errors are frequent inappropriate capitalizations of words, which he probably did inadvertently, and was, one would suspect, a subconscious carry-over from his knowledge of written German (and perhaps other European languages as well), where all important common nouns are appropriately capitalized. If you look at the text of Noso's 1922 letter to J. Edgar Hoover (Behn, paperback, pp. 383-384), you will see that it contains some inappropriate capitalizations as well, but is otherwise fairly well written. Also in the letter to Hoffman is the title "Your Excellency" or "His Excellency" which strongly suggests a European writer invoking a title of nobility. Recall that Noso had an extensive travel history within Europe and could well have concentrated on learning languages there as an important skill in his espionage trade. Obviously, a knowledge of written German would be critical in faking the ransom notes as being the work of a semiliterate German immigrant, if that were his motivation. Since he himself was NOT of German origin, and did NOT have a German name, he felt he could insulate himself in that way from suspicion as the ransom note writer.
It might be helpful if someone could post a hard copy of Nosovitsky's 1922 handwritten letter to J. Edgar Hoover, which Behn claimed to have seen, for the purposes of handwriting comparison to the Faulkner letter to Governor Hoffman. It would seem as if the writer in both instances would be trying to show off his best English writing style to a recipient in a high position from whom he was seeking a favor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2015 17:39:25 GMT -5
When you say letters, generally, are you referring to more than just the Faulkner deposit slip and the letter to Gov. Hoffman? Are there other letters from J.J. Faulkner that Pelletreau had in his possession? Or was Pelletreau using letters Nosovitsky had written and comparing them to the J.J. Faulkner writings? I am aware that Pelletreau believed that Nosovitsky was the writer of the ransom notes but did he believe Noso wrote the Faulkner items also? I am talking about the Dr. Hudson "Jhon" letter as well. I know we talked about this before. From memory Pelletreau said Noso wrote the Ransom Notes, and the Dr. Hudson letter. He said the Faulkner letter to the Governor was written by the same person who wrote the Faulkner deposit slip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 19:49:10 GMT -5
I remember this conversation, Michael. I will pull the stuff from my files and look over it again. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2015 20:31:43 GMT -5
It might be helpful if someone could post a hard copy of Nosovitsky's 1922 handwritten letter to J. Edgar Hoover, which Behn claimed to have seen, for the purposes of handwriting comparison to the Faulkner letter to Governor Hoffman. It would seem as if the writer in both instances would be trying to show off his best English writing style to a recipient in a high position from whom he was seeking a favor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 8:32:35 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this sample Michael. Nosovitsky's handwriting seems a bit more crude looking in this letter than the sample you posted in the past. Since Noso is a forger, how are we supposed to know what really represents his true handwriting? He certainly can't be writing in a disguised manor every time he writes. Perhaps because this letter was going to Hoover, it is more likely in his natural writing??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 9:03:39 GMT -5
]Amy, It was more about J.J. Faulkner in total. I have been looking at this J.J. Faulkner angle for awhile. That bank deposit slip for Lindbergh gold certs wasn't in Hauptmann's writing so someone else was involved with the ransom money besides Hauptmann. Could the writer and the person doing the depositing have been a woman? The bank teller who took the deposit, James Estey, wasn't sure it was a man who made the deposit. When researching the name Faulkner, I came across an interesting coincidence. The wife of James Warburg, Kay Swift, was a Faulkner according to Wikipedia. Do you know if this is correct? Here is the Wikipedia link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Swift
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2015 5:23:08 GMT -5
When researching the name Faulkner, I came across an interesting coincidence. The wife of James Warburg, Kay Swift, was a Faulkner according to Wikipedia. Do you know if this is correct? Here is the Wikipedia link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_SwiftYes. Katharine Weber, Kay Swift's granddaughter, posted this on the Board some years back: Incidentally, my grandmother's maiden name was indeed Faulkner. Her mother was English, and the Faulkners lived in England. I have no awareness of any Faulkner relations living in the US in this time period. There are no J.J. Faulkners in the family, and there was no connection between Faulkners and Warburgs. Here is her archived page where I've also linked her book: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/742/memory-all
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 13, 2015 21:53:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for your post of the handwritten letter from Jacob Nosovitsky to J. Edgar Hoover.
Although I'm not a certified Forensic Document Examiner, I have had some informal basic lessons on the subject of handwriting analysis. So I tried to compare the letter to J. Edgar Hoover to the "J. J. Faulkner" letter to Gov. Hoffman. At first glance I thought that the writers were different, if you discount the fact that Noso was a very crafty and clever individual, who could have changed handwritings on a whim. But as I looked further, I saw some similarities, notably the unusual "k"s that impressed Pelletreau, demonstrated by the "k' in the "Nosovitzky" signature (note his spelling with a "z" rather than an "s") as compared to the "k" in the "J. J. Faulkner" signature. Both are rather unusual. A similar "k" can be seen in "New York" in the first sentence of the letter to Hoover and in the "New-York" in the heading of the letter to Hoffman. Among the other similarities noted in the two documents are the word "I", the lower case "h" as in "the," and the lower case "c" when used as the first letter in a word. Also, as I had stated before, both letters have several words with inappropriate capitalizations, suggesting a writer of European origin, probably with some German writing background. The hyphenated "New-York" as well as the title "His Excellency" in the letter to Hoffman further suggest a European writer, and both letters indicate a writer with respectable, though not elite, English writing skills for an individual for whom English is not a native language.
I'm not convinced one way or another on the key question of whether these two letters had the same author, but with the science of handwriting analysis much more advanced today when compared to the 1930s, perhaps a current Certified Document Examiner can review the two documents and make some kind of more definitive determination as to whether or not Noso wrote the letter to Hoffman. The same might be done with the ransom notes, the letter to Dr. Hudson, and the bank deposit slip. The thing that seems to be missing in this case is the input of modern-day living and breathing handwriting experts who can really shed new light in particular on Noso's link to the case, if these handwritings are determined to be his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 20:42:21 GMT -5
Michael,
Mary Cerrita claimed that Hauptmann bought hot ransom money and that he was not the kidnapper. This is what the writer of the J.J. Faulkner letter stated also. Do you know if Mary Cerrita's handwriting was ever checked as the possible writer of the JJ Faulkner letter? Did Gov. Hoffman ever concern himself with the Birritella/Cerrita angle of the Lindbergh Kidnapping case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2015 19:00:50 GMT -5
Michael, Mary Cerrita claimed that Hauptmann bought hot ransom money and that he was not the kidnapper. This is what the writer of the J.J. Faulkner letter stated also. Do you know if Mary Cerrita's handwriting was ever checked as the possible writer of the JJ Faulkner letter? Did Gov. Hoffman ever concern himself with the Birritella/Cerrita angle of the Lindbergh Kidnapping case? I know they had Mary's, Peter's (Pietro), and John's handwriting available to them. I don't remember any report specifically mentioning comparison, however, based upon all of the other actions the Police took during this time-frame as well as others there's no doubt in my mind this was done. Now to what extend would be the only point of contention. Many of those people investigated during the "J.J. Faulkner" phase had been looked at by the Investigators themselves first, for example, Wilson and Keaten ruled out people's handwriting right from jump-street and it ended with them. If they saw something they felt might be similar or in need of review it went to Snook. There it could end with him, or if he felt it should be looked at closer then off to Osborn D. it went. So first you'd have to trust my research. Next, you'd have to trust the Police observations. And finally, you'd have to trust the "Experts." Next, from memory, I believe George Foster was the only PI to write up something on the Birritella angle. He basically told Hoffman that the FBI looked into this and turned up nothing so I don't believe it was ever pursued from there, or at least I'm not remembering anything at the moment (I think I would if it were).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 9:30:34 GMT -5
So first you'd have to trust my research. Next, you'd have to trust the Police observations. And finally, you'd have to trust the "Experts." Next, from memory, I believe George Foster was the only PI to write up something on the Birritella angle. He basically told Hoffman that the FBI looked into this and turned up nothing so I don't believe it was ever pursued from there, or at least I'm not remembering anything at the moment (I think I would if it were). Well, Michael, if you and the police and the "Experts" are all on the same page with this handwriting issue, that covers it really well. I know that the Birretella/Cerrita angle was investigated. I think that Peter and Mary should have been handled differently from the get-go. Having someone like Owney Madden along with Mickey Rosner interacting with these two people would have frightened them into silence and if the kidnappers were trying to use Peter and Mary as messengers, the underworld presence hurt that. I actually think it is possible someone with inside knowledge of the kidnapping was giving Peter and Mary info which they claimed came from the "spirits". When you think about it, that is a rather slick idea. The "spirits" being the only source for the kidnapping information certainly protects not only Peter and Mary but also the person(s) who are giving out this information. It is the same MO you see with the use of "John" by Condon. John becomes the cover figure that the kidnappers hide behind which protects their true identities and protects Condon too. To me, it looks like the same unseen hand is at work here.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 21, 2019 16:15:52 GMT -5
Hurtelable is unquestionably correct. Solving the handwriting questions could actually solve the crime, as opposed to just creating more questions as this board has been doing for over ten years. Get some experts out there hurt!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2019 9:02:17 GMT -5
Hurtelable is unquestionably correct. Solving the handwriting questions could actually solve the crime, as opposed to just creating more questions as this board has been doing for over ten years. Get some experts out there hurt! That's the trick isn't it? To "solve" the handwriting question. The problem is that we have the Ransom Notes AND the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip. By ALL accounts these were written by two different hands. So almost immediately we see certain people pre-empting this fact by claiming Hauptmann "duped" someone into writing the Faulkner slip as a way around this fact and keep the Lone-Wolf Theory in tact.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 23, 2019 23:58:17 GMT -5
Hurtelable is unquestionably correct. Solving the handwriting questions could actually solve the crime, as opposed to just creating more questions as this board has been doing for over ten years. Get some experts out there hurt! That's the trick isn't it? To "solve" the handwriting question. The problem is that we have the Ransom Notes AND the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip. By ALL accounts these were written by two different hands. So almost immediately we see certain people pre-empting this fact by claiming Hauptmann "duped" someone into writing the Faulkner slip as a way around this fact and keep the Lone-Wolf Theory in tact. It's ashame Anna didn't survive far enough into the DNA age. She probably would have had a compelling case to get the still-sealed envelope flaps tested. Manfred probably would too but he seems to not want to be involved whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2019 7:37:00 GMT -5
It's ashame Anna didn't survive far enough into the DNA age. She probably would have had a compelling case to get the still-sealed envelope flaps tested. Manfred probably would too but he seems to not want to be involved whatsoever. It is a shame. Although most of us already are quite aware that there were others involved ... the more information to consider the better. But would the "excuses" fly from the Lone-Wolf people or what? I can see it now... Hauptmann "tricked" someone into sealing the note for him.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 28, 2019 8:42:36 GMT -5
never saw hard evidence that others were involved. ive been at it since 1992. the police didn't find nobody then and I don't see anything now
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 28, 2019 19:57:04 GMT -5
never saw hard evidence that others were involved. ive been at it since 1992. the police didn't find nobody then and I don't see anything now Except all the physical evidence, starting with the fact there were multiple sets of footprints leading away from the house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2019 7:53:46 GMT -5
Except all the physical evidence, starting with the fact there were multiple sets of footprints leading away from the house. And BOTH Look-Outs neither of which could have been Cemetery John. Not to mention the Panel Purchase that involved two people which many like to point out to implicate Hauptmann. Or of course the J. J. Faulkner exchange slip which, in almost 19 years of research I've never seen anyone say was written by Hauptmann. The Ransom laundering required multiple people as well. Etc. etc. etc. So yes - there's evidence all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 31, 2019 8:49:52 GMT -5
there were a lot of footprints but whos to say they were other kidnappers? cant assume
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 31, 2019 19:58:36 GMT -5
Except all the physical evidence, starting with the fact there were multiple sets of footprints leading away from the house. And BOTH Look-Outs neither of which could have been Cemetery John. Not to mention the Panel Purchase that involved two people which many like to point out to implicate Hauptmann. Or of course the J. J. Faulkner exchange slip which, in almost 19 years of research I've never seen anyone say was written by Hauptmann. The Ransom laundering required multiple people as well. Etc. etc. etc. So yes - there's evidence all over the place. People ignoring the lookouts baffles me. The handkerchief of one is still in the archives.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 1, 2019 1:29:53 GMT -5
Yes, but remember, the only people who say they are lookouts are some amateur MM quarterbacks on here. Yes, they could have been lookouts, but they also could have been anybody, including homosexuals looking to pick up dates around the park. I figured a long time ago that the deposit ticket was written by one of the bank clerks. Also there are two styles of writing on the "deposit" slip'. Do you think both are by Faulkner?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 1, 2019 3:55:16 GMT -5
Yes, but remember, the only people who say they are lookouts are some amateur MM quarterbacks on here. Yes, they could have been lookouts, but they also could have been anybody, including homosexuals looking to pick up dates around the park. I figured a long time ago that the deposit ticket was written by one of the bank clerks. Also there are two styles of writing on the "deposit" slip'. Do you think both are by Faulkner? Really? Homosexuals? Considering both people who were there said there was a clear lookout, I'll go with the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2019 7:16:09 GMT -5
there were a lot of footprints but whos to say they were other kidnappers? cant assume No one is assuming. The police investigated and the best they could come up with was that Anne was responsible for the smaller prints located inside the boardwalk. That claim itself is suspicious for the reasons I've outlined in V1. Those heading away from the window to the ladder were never identified and all involved believed them to be those of the Kidnappers. They were potentially joined there by another set, possibly a female, then walked to the parked car. As I've absolutely proven in both V1 & V2 - NO Reporter preceded the footprints being discovered and the first one there arrived as Lindbergh and the NJSP were already following them. You are stuck in the past Steve. It's why I wrote the books. To add information to complement/solidify certain facts/scenarios or correct past errors or omissions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2019 7:28:41 GMT -5
Really? Homosexuals? Considering both people who were there said there was a clear lookout, I'll go with the evidence. Could you imagine this sort of excuse used anywhere else? Jack would crucify anyone who dared to try it. So what this tells me is there's not much of a counter-argument to be made EXCEPT possibly that Lindbergh was lying about what he saw at St. Raymond's. Who would be so "bold" to do that? Or that both Condon & Reich were lying about what they saw at Woodlawn. Is that "allowable?" Other witnesses we have which act as "controls" about what occurred are ... Riehl directly when comparing the version of the CJ encounter, crossing Condon with Reich concerning the event, and later what Uebel obviously saw after the fact. Since Condon clearly dropped off the ransom on East Tremont, the man who came running back looking around then signaling could NOT have had the money. The man Condon claimed he did hand over the money to on Whittemore was a fabrication because all he had at that point was an empty box. The whole situation at St. Raymond's was a brilliant one actually. It's the old bait and switch with this look-out running around all over the place, identifying & signaling to make sure there's no Cops and that no one would get caught. There was obvious planning of which Condon was the key to it. I ask that everyone focus on this ransom drop for a minute. We've got at least two. We've got Condon on board. And we've got a good deal of planning. Now compare this to the actual "kidnapping" then ask yourself if "Hauptmann" did it all by himself. My point is that if those who collected the ransom were involved with the kidnapping we see their tactics on full display here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 1, 2019 9:16:11 GMT -5
Condon clearly dropped off the ransom money on East Tremont? Why? So it would give the kidnappers a head start? Are you suggesting Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers operating secretively behind Lindbergh's back, or that he was just ensuring that no kidnapper would "be injured," thereby enacting Lindbergh's wishes, as long as he got his son back?
|
|