In a phone conversation Jafsie had with the possible kidnapper, a voice yelled out, "Statti Citto," which means "Shut Up!" in Italian.
Who do you think said this, and why? Supposedly, it wasn't the person Condon was directly talking to on the phone. It was another person.
Do you think the uttering of those words pertained to the kidnapping/ransom? Or could the caller have been in a public place, using a public phone, and a random, innocent bystander in the background just happened to say it loud enough for Condon to hear it?
Personally, I don't give the utterance much weight. Do you? Jd
On the “rapid response” thread, we talked a little about the possibility that Condon might have been a party to the extortionists even before his announcement appeared in the Bronx Home News. It is interesting that Condon kept ID-ing Italians. This is off the top of my head, but in addition to “statti citto,” there was the “sign of the Mafia” on the first communication from the kidnappers, the Italian woman at the bazaar, the Italian needle salesman who came to his door, the Italian scissors grinder who came to his door, and the Calabrese-Italian lookout. With all these Italians spotted by Condon, one would have to think that either (A) there were a bunch of Italians in on the plot, which would be a little odd since none were caught, or (B) Condon was trying to misdirect law enforcement about the identity of the perps. With the notoriety of Al Capone, there was a tendency to stereotype mobsters as Italian (Edward G. Robinson had played the character “Rico” in the 1931 gangster film Little Casear). If—and I underscore “if”—Condon was trying to misdirect LE, maybe he thought Italians would make credible members of a fictitious gang. Then again, he didn’t describe CJ as Italian.
The way Condon tells it there is weight to it. Wasn't this man telling him where he was calling from when the command is uttered or am I misremembering it?
What I see is those believing only Hauptmann was involved as coming up with the only explanation that they can be comfortable with so its oft repeated. Now its a possibility, don't get me wrong, and I think we'd be making a mistake not to add it to our list of considerations.
Next, BR's suggestions are quite worthy too. I especially like his 2nd one because it was Condon who wrote that the Cemetery Meetings were an Italian custom. So it could be that Condon is actually experiencing this stuff or he is making it up in order to have that Italian option available to him. Maybe the call didn't really happen. I know there was some debate about how many calls he received.... I think he offered there were two then only one - you know - typical Condon. Like the "Lady of Tuckahoe" who did, then didn't, then did exist.
I think the bottom line, for me anyway, is that we cannot trust Condon. So even if there was a call he could have been completely making it all up or changing what was said to suit himself for whatever his motive may (or may not) have been.
I think most people, if they told the number of lies that Condon did, would have eventually cracked under the pressure of men like Walsh. In this regard, I think Condon’s pompous nature may have actually “served him well”—he had the moxie and bravado to lie and keep on lying without cracking and going to pieces. I wonder if this might have been a skill he developed earlier, when he was apparently accused of molesting young girls as a high school principal—although I gather the validity of the accusations is still a cloudy issue. Perhaps he had to do a lot of lying and prevaricating in that situation as well.
Regarding “statto citti” and the numerous Italian allusions made by Condon—if Condon was party to the extortion game from the beginning, his promised “cut” being the fame that would go with returning the baby to the mother—I wonder if there wasn’t a prearranged, mutually-agreed plan to fob the whole thing off on the Italian mob. “Statto citti” might have been a helpful clue given to Condon in this regard. It might also explain the haste with which Condon claimed, in his call to the Lindbergh estate, that the message he received was signed with “the sign of the Mafia”—which it wasn’t.
If anyone could have been leading Condon in this regard, my pick is Nosovitsky. We know he knew Condon (there was a lawsuit between them) and Nosovitsky was skilled in many languages as well as forgery. Add to that the statements about Nosovitsky by Stroh and Doyle. I think Behn hit a home run in making his find about Nosovitsky. If Nosovitsky was CJ, as some have suggested, the meetings in the cemetery may have entailed instructing Condon as to what details he was tell law enforcement. There is no witness to what was said except Condon.
Nosovitsky was an asset of the NYC police, and I have to wonder if Noso had a “fix” in at some level of the NYPD—someone who could tip him off if it was safe to proceed. We have talked a lot about the deficits of the NJSP in this case. Michael, if you don’t mind my asking, has there have been someone on the NYPD who struck you as not quite kosher in the way he handled this case? If Noso could claim he had “a cop in his pocket,” it might have gone a long ways in persuading other perps to go along with what was obviously an extremely dangerous scheme (though less dangerous if they thought the baby was still alive). After all, "the boys from the Bronx" would be more worried about the NYPD than the NJSP.
The libel suit of Nosovitsky vs. Condon was sometime in 1937. Nosovitsky has always been a subject of interest for me but I've never seen anything conclusive regarding his involvement, including the claim that he was JJ Faulkner. Personally, I wouldn't hang my hat on Behn's claim that he was.. he seems to make liberal use of literary license.
I believe the connection between Nosovitsky and Condon lies within the claims of Dennis Doyle, who was related to Condon and along with Wally Stroh, claimed Nosovitsky had attempted to recruit others for the kidnap of a prominent person in New Jersey, before the time of the Lindbergh kidnapping. I can imagine Condon pursuing this lead well after the trial.
Joe is correct, JD—the lawsuit did not originate until 1937. So it may have been pertaining to matters that occurred well after the fact, and doesn't signify that they knew each other before the kidnapping. Acording to Pat Doyle’s memoir, shortly after the kidnapping, Nosovitsky did approach Dinny Doyle (Condon’s second cousin) with a question about Condon’s past. rense.com/general74/doyle.htm This suggests a possible link, or at least that Nosovitsky had an interest in Condon, as early as 1932.
I don’t know the details of the 1937 lawsuit, but I should add that, if it was over some allegation Condon made about Nosovitsky being involved in the kidnapping, that pretty much busts my hypothesis about collusion between Noso and Jafsie in the extortion plot. With BRH already convicted, it would hardly make sense for Noso and Jafsie to risk exposing their own complicity in the crime in court.
Michael, if you don’t mind my asking, has there have been someone on the NYPD who struck you as not quite kosher in the way he handled this case? (BR)
Nothing in relationship to Noso. Of course that is always subject to change in the event I missed something, as I have been known to do, then discover it going through my material again.
I do know there was much discussion in the past concerning whether or not Noso actually did use the name "J. J. Faulkner" in his past and I have been able to find documentation that he did.
But like Joe said this fact doesn't prove he was the author of the infamous deposit slip.
I believe the connection between Nosovitsky and Condon lies within the claims of Dennis Doyle, who was related to Condon and along with Wally Stroh, claimed Nosovitsky had attempted to recruit others for the kidnap of a prominent person in New Jersey, before the time of the Lindbergh kidnapping. (Joe)
I do know there was much discussion in the past concerning whether or not Noso actually did use the name "J. J. Faulkner" in his past and I have been able to find documentation that he did. (Michael)
Now that is news to me, Michael! And I'm really hoping you can provide the source for that, as I think it would nudge Nosovitsky's door open another crack. And I'm wondering if your source comes from a copy of his NYPD criminal record.
Now that is news to me, Michael! And I'm really hoping you can provide the source for that, as I think it would nudge Nosovitsky's door open another crack. And I'm wondering if your source comes from a copy of his NYPD criminal record. (Joe)
I found it in a couple of places but they were FBI sources to include this Memo written by P. E. Foxworth in August '38:
It appears that J. J. Nosoma is identical with one Jacob Nosozitsky, alias J. J. Faulkner and it is the Bureau's understanding that (censored)has had some negotiation with this individual, for which reason the Bureau does not desire to have anything to do with him.
Thanks Michael. Do you think that Nosovitsky's past affiliations with Hoover and the Bureau, as well as the NYPD, might have given him a bye from any serious investigations? I am sure there is much he would be willing to spill if push came to shove.
Do you think that Nosovitsky's past affiliations with Hoover and the Bureau, as well as the NYPD, might have given him a bye from any serious investigations? I am sure there is much he would be willing to spill if push came to shove. (Joe)
If I am understanding you correctly I'd have to say no. I am by no means an Expert on JEH, but from everything I've read concerning this case, and a few others, he seems to hate when people formerly associated with the Bureau puts it "out there" to further themselves - for any reason. It appears to put them on his "s-list". Also, if he saw others seeking publicity for personal gain he avoided giving it to them at the Agency's expense - financial, reputation, or otherwise.
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5