Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 10:37:43 GMT -5
LOL xjd!!! Whoever wrote the comments to go with this picture must have been in need of a good solid meal! That whole text needs lots of help! I do admit that I mess up on my posts too. I had to edit something this morning in a post I made last night! I really should not post after midnight. I turn into a pumpkin head and have typos and then don't even catch them before I click to post my comments. UGH!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 10:58:45 GMT -5
I have been posting here for over two years and I have never known you to be anything but a straight-shooter in your posts. You wouldn't be Michael if you posted any other way!
I see Zorn's book as his way to honor his father's personal belief that he (Dad) knew who the real CJ was, so I don't use the book as a reference source.
The first Berryman sketch had CJ looking older, more like in his 40's at least. Do you know why CJ was redrawn to look younger? Was this at Condon's request because he "remembered" CJ was younger looking than the way he first related his description to the artist? Would you know how much time elapsed between the first sketch and the second one?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2014 15:43:06 GMT -5
To Amy, Michael, and xjd:
That "Overview" accompanying the police artist sketches on the AP site seems to be written by a semiliterate, which makes it difficult to understand. I agree that I've never heard of the term "ransom-tater." (Isn't a "tater" a colloquial term for "potato"? (LOL!))
As for Zorn's book, while it's surely not complete fiction, it falls short of the author's goal of proving that John Knoll - an older friend of the author's then-teenager father at the time of the crime - was "Cemetery John." Not enough evidence is there to convince me that Knoll was either "Cemetery John" or that Knoll took part in the actual kidnapping, yet Zorn invokes a scenario in which Knoll, Knoll's brother, and Hauptmann are all at the Lindbergh estate as the three perpetrators of the snatching of Charles Jr. Seems as if Zorn is overzealous to come to such a conclusion as a tribute to his late father's legacy, since his father had been theorizing Knoll's involvement for many years. it is notable, though, that Zorn's father's suspicions of Knoll's involvement in the crime didn't start until 30 years after the crime itself. I don't know of anything to definitively rule out Knoll as a suspect, but there isn't enough in Zorn's book to inculpate him in the crime.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 14, 2014 20:41:09 GMT -5
Robert zorns book reminds me of the black dahlia unsolved murder in los angeles where people wrote books claiming there father did it and so fourth with no solid proof
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2014 8:01:55 GMT -5
I have been posting here for over two years and I have never known you to be anything but a straight-shooter in your posts. You wouldn't be Michael if you posted any other way! I see Zorn's book as his way to honor his father's personal belief that he (Dad) knew who the real CJ was, so I don't use the book as a reference source. The first Berryman sketch had CJ looking older, more like in his 40's at least. Do you know why CJ was redrawn to look younger? Was this at Condon's request because he "remembered" CJ was younger looking than the way he first related his description to the artist? Would you know how much time elapsed between the first sketch and the second one? When I first researched this my thoughts immediately jumped to something negative. After all, the Authorities had the Hunterton County Democrat print a fake article back during the Wycoff Murder investigation in order to get a confession from their prime suspect at the time. They also did the same thing to scare Kloppenburg during this investigation. However, according to Asst. Director Lester, "three months" before Hauptmann's arrest, J. Edgar Hoover sent Berryman to sit down with Condon and produce this sketch. He claimed it took more then 2 days when finally Condon said: " That's the man to whom I paid the ransom money." The Agents were all given a copy of this sketch and showed it during interviews. A copy of this sketch was leaked to the press, and it isn't the one we always see. But looking for an alternative explanation outside of the obvious one... It could be it was one of the sketches drawn over the course of these two days - just not the one Condon pointed out as being the "closest." And so if you're looking to give them the benefit of the doubt this seems like the best alternative to something nefarious. The artist interviewed Doctor Condon and made the sketches from his memories of the ransom-taters copies of the portrays were distributed to department of justice investigators to and their search for the man. what the heck are ransom-taters? My first thought was a lunch item at the Union Hotel during the trial! To Michael:
What do you guess that Nosovitsky's pose in that infamous photo on the left is supposed to mean, taken on a rooftop holding a spherical object in his left hand while raising his right hand as if in triumph?
Would you happen to know the original sources for each of those Noso photos you posted? It's origin is the same as the other one, and it doesn't appear that he's holding anything. There is another one that I haven't posted where his arms are outreached over his head like he just did a back flip or an acrobatic feat. As best I can tell, I think these were just a poses to present him as being "mysterious." I've also come across a document that indicates he was much older then what he was presenting himself to be. Robert zorns book reminds me of the black dahlia unsolved murder in los angeles where people wrote books claiming there father did it and so fourth with no solid proof The problem is there were all kinds of crimes going on in the world before this one. Once this happened, each and every crime drew the suspicions that they were connected somehow. Furthermore, any time someone said something, the observer connected that too. There are literally thousands upon thousands of letters at the NJSP Archives written by people who overheard something they connected to the Kidnapping. Here Zorn has his Father hearing something when he was a kid then writes a Novel that for whatever reason people believe is true. Hauptmann went by "Richard" or "Dick." No one ever called him "Bruno." When the papers started referring to him as "Bruno" even Anna was perplexed. Sure, his name was Bruno Richard Hauptmann but if someone yelled "Bruno" in a crowd Hauptmann wouldn't have turned around. No one called him that - ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2014 9:08:30 GMT -5
So, if I am understanding you correctly, the Berryman sketches were made over a 48 hour period in the early summer of 1934? The more mature looking sketch and then the younger looking CJ showing the frontal and profile sketches were made at that time? The sketch that was leaked to the press is the second or younger looking CJ one? This is also the one that Condon says is the closest likeness to CJ?
I need to ask you now if 1934 was the first time an artist sat down with Condon to sketch CJ? Didn't NJSP do this at all with Condon in 1932, especially after the child's body was recovered, ransom money is being spent, and CJ was much fresher in Condon's mind? Wouldn't you want to have a composite drawing as soon as possible for the police departments in various states to use in helping to apprehend this kidnapper and murderer of the most famous baby in the world?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 15, 2014 10:07:39 GMT -5
To Michael and All:
"There is another one that I haven't posted where his arms are outreached over his head like he just did a back flip or an acrobatic feat."
Back flip or acrobatic feat? Could this possibly another factor hinting that Noso was "Cemetery John"? It was this type of acrobatic athleticism that Condon observed in "Cemetery John" when CJ scaled a cemetery wall! In fact, Condon at one point in the investigations was asking suspects shown him by police if they had any background in gymnastics.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 15, 2014 15:10:45 GMT -5
people here do the same thing they try to connect people to the crime with little proof
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 11:47:03 GMT -5
I am aware of Condon asking Hauptmann if he had a background in any sports activites. I did not know that Condon asked this of other suspects.
You seem to know a lot about Nosovitsky. I am not well versed in this angle but I am certainly interested in learning more. I will be honest here and say that Noso's involvement for me diminished when it was hooked to Dwight Morrow owing him $50,000 dollars. The phony documents Nosovitsky provided concerning Mexico happened before Morrow was ambassador there. I really don't see the connection.
Taking Romeo12's point into consideration, we have Condon and Hauptmann as primary players in this case. How do you see Nosovitsky interacting with these two people, especially Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 16, 2014 15:52:53 GMT -5
I never saw real proof that he had anything to do with the crime, you can say that with a lot of people the poice suspected but cleared. I see people connecting condon with others even reilly use to tell newspaper reporters hes going to connect this one to that one but never panned out. I feel reading a lot of newspaper accounts that reilly said things he shouldn't have, which makes me think he didn't realize the power of the press at the time
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Jun 16, 2014 18:57:56 GMT -5
This was from Ancestry, dont know if it has already been posted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2014 20:09:51 GMT -5
So, if I am understanding you correctly, the Berryman sketches were made over a 48 hour period in the early summer of 1934? The more mature looking sketch and then the younger looking CJ showing the frontal and profile sketches were made at that time? The sketch that was leaked to the press is the second or younger looking CJ one? This is also the one that Condon says is the closest likeness to CJ? It's in Fisher's book that both Condon and Perrone aided in this sketch. I believe his source was the New York Times since I've never found anything about Perrone elsewhere. It's my belief that Perrone had nothing to do with it and I base it on the FBI sources I have concerning this event. They say absolutely nothing about Perrone. What they say is: Dr. Condon described and redescribed that individual. The cartoonist, drew and redrew his features from Dr. Condon's oral description hundreds of times, the eyes, the nose, the ears, the mouth, the teeth, the forehead, for more then two days, until Dr. Condon said, "That's the man to whom I paid the ransom money." The sketch that first hit the newspapers isn't the one that looks like Hauptmann which we see all the time nowadays. So I've offered possibilities to explain this - that's all it is. First Release to the Press: What we see now: I need to ask you now if 1934 was the first time an artist sat down with Condon to sketch CJ? Didn't NJSP do this at all with Condon in 1932, especially after the child's body was recovered, ransom money is being spent, and CJ was much fresher in Condon's mind? Wouldn't you want to have a composite drawing as soon as possible for the police departments in various states to use in helping to apprehend this kidnapper and murderer of the most famous baby in the world? Well, as I wrote earlier, no one is ever 100% right 100% of the time so there's always a possibility I've overlooked something, or that Sam or Steve might have a source I have not seen... However, as I sit here now, what I see is Berryman made the first sketch. As we saw with the Ransom Money being fingerprinted by the FBI, they would learn certain things hadn't been done which should have - then just went ahead and did it themselves. But of course, the FBI never really knew the truth since much was being withheld from them. In this case, it should be remembered, that Condon was on exceptionally good terms with the FBI and there's little doubt in my mind he told them it hadn't been done. This combined with no known sketch led Hoover to take advantage of the situation. In fact, Condon drew the "sketch" of Cemetery John's "powerful" hand exemplifying the "lump" in that drawing about a week before the cartoonist went to New York. And so this unsolicited sketch of John's hand may have actually been the impetus for the Berryman sketch. The only other "sketch" I have ever seen was one produced by a Newspaper in 1932. They claimed it was made based upon the "all known descriptions" of John so it's quite obvious it wasn't done by sitting down with Condon: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 16, 2014 20:21:39 GMT -5
also mike I saw the same one in a true detective mag that I have, somebody was nice enough to make me a color copy of the mag. also perrones son in law told me that his father in law told him they were always dragging him down to the police station during that time. its quite possible he aided the police in the sketch but I don't know about this one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 9:17:07 GMT -5
Looking at the two different sketches, I think Condon's initial description of CJ fits better with the first, more mature looking CJ. The more angular face, pointed chin, thin lips, and higher cheek bones which give the eyes a more narrow appearance.
The second sketch makes CJ look younger. The angles of the face are softer, the lips fuller, the cheeks not as prominent which softens the eyes.
For me, they look more like two different men.
Ugh. What I was hoping not to hear but was expecting to hear. Things that should have been done weren't. They really needed to make that sketch in 1932. The general description that was provided, sandy blonde hair, grey eyes, 5' 10 inches and approximately 160 lbs. fits alot of german men. How did they ever expect to apprehend any serious suspects based on that general description.
I think what would have been helpful to do in 1932 was have Condon sit down with an artist and create a composite and to also have Perrone sit down with a different artist and create a composite based on his description. This way we could see if they actually saw the same man on the night of March 12. Condon and Perrone's descriptions of what CJ was wearing that night differed. Maybe their composties would have also.
Thanks for posting this. I laughed when I saw it. It goes to show what can come out of a general description of a person. They can take many forms! LE really needed to make that sketch in 1932. Actually, looking at that 1932 "sketch" I thought they should have picked up the cashier. He looks more like the Berryman sketch of CJ!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 10:44:07 GMT -5
Babyinthecrib,
Nice find about the lawsuit. I had not seen that before. I remember reading somewhere that there was a lawsuit but it was thrown out of court or something. I never saw the one you found though. Sounds like Nosovitsky filed a slander case against Condon. That would have been an interesting proceeding had it occured! Thanks for posting that.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 18, 2014 0:33:40 GMT -5
To babyinthecrib, amy35, Michael, romeo12, and others interested:
Wow, that's really a bombshell, the revelation that Noso sued Condon for implicating Noso in the crime! (Didn't even know that Ancestry.com has records of civil suits.) This is the first time I've ever seen any source indicating that Condon actually knew of Noso, although I suppose the liaison between them might have been Condon's relative Dinny Doyle.
As for details on Nosovitsky, Noel Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime" has a whole capsule biography of him, quite a character to be sure. Behn's conclusion is that Noso wrote all but the first of the ransom notes and was indeed "Cemetery John." BTW, Nosovitsky wrote a series of articles which appeared in the New York American and other Hearst newspapers in eleven installments in 1925, titled "Confessions of an International Spy." (One of the photos of Noso posted by Michael is from the American in that year, which fits neatly with his writing for them at the time) So he had a public profile years before the Lindberg crime. He also worked for and against many high-profile individuals at various times in the 1920s, including J. Edgar Hoover, whom he once double-crossed.
Noso, as I suggested in an earlier post, was fluent in German, according to Behn. Thus he could have faked the semiliterate English of a German immigrant as in the ransom notes, and was also skillful enough to fake a German accent as "Cemetery John." In real life, Noso could write English fairly well, although his letter to Gov. Hoffman (signed "J. J. Faulkner"), which appears in its entirety in Behn's book, contains a few telltale characteristics of authorship by a European immigrant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 15:37:53 GMT -5
It looks like I am going to have to read Behn's book. Based on this and other threads on this blog, I thought that Behn's theory was that Elisabeth Morrow caused Charlie's demise.
Was Nosovitsky just part of the extortion in the Bronx? Was Nosovitsky the planner of the kidnapping as Wally Stroh and Dinny Doyle claim? Who do you think actually took Charlie from the nursery then?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 18, 2014 15:42:22 GMT -5
amy that's a good question, two bad I wasn't up to par with his book in 1996 when I met behn in Flemington at the Lindbergh kidnap symposium. he died a year or two after
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 16:57:53 GMT -5
A Lindbergh Kidnap Symposium? I didn't know they had those. Did Behn talk about his book? Did he answer questions?
There are so many books on the Lindbergh case. I have only read about 4 of them from cover to cover. I have several others waiting to be read. I have learned a lot from Michael and others who post here. It seems the more I learn, the more questions I have.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 18, 2014 19:51:04 GMT -5
To Amy, Michael et al:
By all means, read Behn's book. Hope I'm not giving too much away, but Behn's main conclusions are: (1) There was no kidnapping, rather Charles Jr. was killed by Elizabeth Morrow, the baby's aunt, and the kidnapping was a hoax staged by the family to cover up for the psychiatrically-impaired Elizabeth and save the family's reputation. (2) The extremely cunning Nosovitsky saw a copy of the original ransom note left in the baby's room via contacts in the New York underworld, and decided to extort the ransom payment - in doing so, he authored all the ransom notes other than the first and was indeed "Cemetery John." My personal theory is that (2) is true and that (1) is far more doubtful. Behn's conclusion (1) absolves him from the need to prove that Noso or any other outsider intruders were ever at the Lindbergh estate at the time of the baby's death and the need to show that any specific individual planned the kidnapping. He does talk about one-time fellow NYC prison inmates of Nosso telling newspaper reporters that Nosso often talked about kidnapping and tried to engage others in planning kidnap schemes in the future.
Separately, I would suggest that there may be court records still available on the Nosovitsky v. Condon suit, and if so, going through them could provide some very interesting info.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jun 18, 2014 20:14:05 GMT -5
amy theres was a panel debate group with Robert bryan mrs hauptmanns attorney, jim fisher, noel behn, a guy who was a expert on the newspaper side of the case, and the guy who wrote the script for the first 1976 movie on the kidnapping, with a moderator. I had a great time
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 21, 2014 10:24:09 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, xdj, romeo12, babyinthecrib, et al:
Re: Circumstances of first artist sketch or sketches of Cemetery John
Here's a relevant passage from Noel Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime" (p.172, paperback edition):
What began to strike investigators and reporters who managed to interview Jafsie was that the old man seldom told the same story twice, and quite often his latest version of events contradicted what he had said in the past. Talking to Elmer Irey [Treasury agent] at the Morrow townhouse in the hours after the ransom had been paid, Condon described John as being between five feet eight inches and five feet ten inches, weighing 160 pounds, and having a triangular face with high cheekbones, almond-shaped eyes, thick and straight eyebrows, large ears, a straight nose, and slightly stooped shoulders. He readily identified the sketch an IRS artist was making from his description as looking very much like John. The vital statistics he soon provided to other investigators and newsmen saw John get shorter and leaner and younger - thirty to thirty-four years old - standing straighter, stooping more, developing a growth on the inside of his left hand, talking in a thicker Germanic accent as well as in less of an accent, becoming more Scandinavian, using the expressions "smack me out" and "did you get my letter," pronouncing the words perfect as pefect, colonel as kennel, five as fife, and where as vare. Jafsie asserted that the drawing made by a second artist also looked very much like John even though it didn't bear that much of a resemblance to the previous picture he had identified. At least two newspaper reports would quote him as saying he never clearly saw John's face either in St. Raymond's Cemetery or in Woodlawn Cemetery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 11:23:10 GMT -5
Hurtelable,
You made a very interesting post about Condon and the description of CJ. You also touch upon one of the most frustrating things about Condon which is how he would change up things he would say to officials, newspaper people and privately about a person or event connected with this case. Everything he says has to be scrutinized to try to discern what might be true factual statements verses his self-serving embellishments.
Does Behn provide a footnote for the IRS artist sketch? It sounds like the sketch was being made right after the ransom payment was made the evening of April 2, 1932?
Michael, have you ever come across any references to a sketch made by IRS agents on April 2, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2014 16:30:13 GMT -5
Does Behn provide a footnote for the IRS artist sketch? It sounds like the sketch was being made right after the ransom payment was made the evening of April 2, 1932? Behn's source is Fisher on page 84 of his first novel. There is no source for it but I'll give it to you myself to save everyone the trouble: Condon's Liberty Article part 7. Like most of this material, it finds its way into his book Jafsie Tells All! ( p.161-3) Michael, have you ever come across any references to a sketch made by IRS agents on April 2, 1932? No. I have Irey's official Statements regarding this event and there's nothing like this mentioned in any of them. Furthermore, I know who was in that room with them and none of these men were "Sketch Artists" of any kind (and by the way, I have their Statements as well). The way Condon tells it, he basically told the man how to draw one as if he were an idiot or something. The nail in the coffin is the fact that I have a list of ALL exhibits the Treasury Agents either created or utilized during their Lindbergh Kidnapping Investigation prior to 1934 ( SI-6336-M). There are 69 exhibits and not one is listed as a sketch of "John" - or anyone else for that matter. Here's something from Irey's recollection in "Tax Dodgers" (1948), which says nothing about this sketch either by the way ( p77-8):
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2014 9:08:57 GMT -5
To babyinthecrib, Michael, amy35, romeo12, et al:
The image of the index card produced by babyinthecrib via Ancestry.com is from an Associated Press archive index. It indicates that there was an Associated Press story on April 23, 1937 about Nosovitsky's defamation suit against Condon. But it doesn't mention which newspapers carried the story, which makes it kind of tedious to find the text of the whole article. Most newspapers have not yet digitalized their archives from back in that era.
Finding the court records could possibly yield a lot of fascinating new information about the whole case.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2014 9:30:24 GMT -5
To amy35:
The only endnote Behn gives comes directly after the first description of CJ, but before the mention of the IRS artist. He cites Jim Fisher's "The Lindbergh Case," published by Rutgers University Press in 1987.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2014 9:51:44 GMT -5
To amy35:
The only endnote Behn gives comes directly after the first description of CJ, but before the mention of the IRS artist. He cites Jim Fisher's "The Lindbergh Case," published by Rutgers University Press in 1987. See my comments to Amy below.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2014 9:52:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2014 10:09:55 GMT -5
To amy35:
Yes, John F. Condon appears to be a rather one-of-a-kind character, very hard to describe. You have to realize he was 72 years old at the time of the event with CJ, and did not get all that good a look at CJ because CJ partially covered his face and it was dark. We don't know how good Condon's vision and memory may have been at that point, do we?
From what I can gather, Condon was an unusually intelligent man (could have been in MENSA today) with a lot of varied accomplishments, including writing, scholarship, and athletics. But he was hardly a celebrity outside the Bronx, and had an egotistical streak in him which prompted him to jump into Lindbergh case with his famous letter to the Bronx Home News. He had legitimate courage in his convictions. Not too many men, especially of his age, would have willfully taken on the risk of conversing with and physically meeting Cemetery John alone. Seems like once he achieved the fame he sought, he became even more egotistical, delighting in drawing attention to himself and talking endlessly in public, perhaps not fully in control of what he was saying. (I've seen film footage of one of his press conferences, and his appearance at the Hauptmann trial.)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 22, 2014 11:56:17 GMT -5
To Michael:
Wow, that little Brooklyn Eagle article was an excellent find and a quick one as well.
The fact that Nosso filed the suit indicates to me that he was looking to extort some more cash (in this case, from Condon) and thought that by 1938, almost exactly two years after the execution of Hauptmann, law enforcement would have considered the case completely solved and wouldn't be interested in him regardless of what came up in the proceedings of the civil suit. In Nosso's mind the benefits of another big pay day outweighed the risks of being implicated in the crime at that late date.
Also, I didn't previously realize that (1) Condon knew that Nosso was "J. J. Faulkner" and (2) Nosso was investigated by a grand jury in Hunterdon County (when?).
|
|