|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 11, 2019 19:05:56 GMT -5
Interesting little piece of film there, I love Dallas Fort Worth. It was a steamship, not a yacht, that was returning Condon and his daughter from their little get-away in Panama. IIRC, Gov. Hoffman's people were trying to talk to Condon at this time, about three months prior to Hauptmann's execution. Apparently, newsmen and photographers were very much still aware of Jafsie and his return around January 1936.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2019 8:35:14 GMT -5
Interesting little piece of film there, I love Dallas Fort Worth. It was a steamship, not a yacht, that was returning Condon and his daughter from their little get-away in Panama. IIRC, Gov. Hoffman's people were trying to talk to Condon at this time, about three months prior to Hauptmann's execution. Apparently, newsmen and photographers were very much still aware of Jafsie and his return around January 1936. That was the story. Andy Dutch claimed it was a coincidence. The whole Panama "getaway" seems strange to me but maybe it was something common back then. I know trips to Cuba were popular. When it came to Condon it was all about timing. When and where he was needed. A very lucky man if you think about it. Everyone believed he knew more and was lying. In the end the Prosecution HAD to defend him from both the Governor and public opinion. If he went down so did their case, and in essence - so did they.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 9:48:51 GMT -5
What's interesting also about this trip and the clip I Love Dallas Fort Worth posted is that while disembarking Gregory Coleman is walking with Condon and Myra. Having read the newspaper coverage about this trip, it says that Gregory Coleman, Ralph Hacker, Myra's husband, and Condon's son John, the lawyer boarded this ship once it had docked. Condon did say that this Panama trip was as much about a rest for his daughter, Myra as it was for him. According to one newspaper story, Myra suffered from pernicious anemia, so this trip was supposed to be for her health and not just about Condon. I can't help but wonder if Gov. Hoffman's interest in Condon and his conflicting accounts about his activities in the LKC (the Liberty Magazine series of articles) are a big part of why Condon really took this tour at that particular time.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 13, 2019 8:41:15 GMT -5
amy the shelf was still there when I was in the house I took pictures of it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2019 9:14:28 GMT -5
amy the shelf was still there when I was in the house I took pictures of it Are you talking about the kitchen closet shelf? Anna testified that she never saw a shoe box on that shelf. I think she made this statement because she could not see all the way to the back of the shelf where Hauptmann claimed he had put the box. Wasn't there also a claim by Anna that the shelves had been rearranged so that it would appear that Anna would not have had any difficulty seeing anything regardless of its location on the top shelf? I think it is awesome that you had the opportunity to go into the Hauptmann apartment. How does the picture you took of that closet compare with the photo that was posted recently on this board? Does the shelving placement look the same or different?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 15, 2019 9:01:15 GMT -5
amy I have the photos taken in 1934, the shelf look the same the guy renting the apt told me it was never moved I saw no evidence of that. im sure reilly told anna to say that
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2019 9:09:58 GMT -5
amy I have the photos taken in 1934, the shelf look the same the guy renting the apt told me it was never moved I saw no evidence of that. im sure reilly told anna to say that I don't think it was moved because if it was then it was moved back. But this idea that Anna said what Reilly told her to say doesn't hold water. He told her to say she saw the box on the top shelf and she refused. Why? Because she hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 17, 2019 8:43:23 GMT -5
amy I have the photos taken in 1934, the shelf look the same the guy renting the apt told me it was never moved I saw no evidence of that. im sure reilly told anna to say that I don't think it was moved because if it was then it was moved back. But this idea that Anna said what Reilly told her to say doesn't hold water. He told her to say she saw the box on the top shelf and she refused. Why? Because she hadn't. annna from her own words from a old documentary said she wouldn't lie about seeing the shoebox when reilly asked her to. from her own mouth. I guess she didn't realize it wasn't helping her husband for her to tell the truth.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 17, 2019 9:45:46 GMT -5
Anna was in a no-win situation. She couldn't have lied and said she saw the box, because Wilentz would have pounced on her with insinuations and relentless questions that surely she would have investigated what it was between December 1933 and mid-August 1934. He knew and she knew that this was HER kitchen. I believe she processed and realized this before she said anything on the stand. Reilly was an idiot and in the end Anna chose the answer that wouldn't hurt her husband as badly. After all, she wasn't lying because there never was a shoebox on the top shelf.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 19, 2019 8:45:32 GMT -5
Anna was in a no-win situation. She couldn't have lied and said she saw the box, because Wilentz would have pounced on her with insinuations and relentless questions that surely she would have investigated what it was between December 1933 and mid-August 1934. He knew and she knew that this was HER kitchen. I believe she processed and realized this before she said anything on the stand. Reilly was an idiot and in the end Anna chose the answer that wouldn't hurt her husband as badly. After all, she wasn't lying because there never was a shoebox on the top shelf. I don't think reilly was a idiot, he knew after a while he had a winlwss case. I feel no lawyer would have won it
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2019 14:51:14 GMT -5
Anna was in a no-win situation. She couldn't have lied and said she saw the box, because Wilentz would have pounced on her with insinuations and relentless questions that surely she would have investigated what it was between December 1933 and mid-August 1934. He knew and she knew that this was HER kitchen. I believe she processed and realized this before she said anything on the stand. Reilly was an idiot and in the end Anna chose the answer that wouldn't hurt her husband as badly. After all, she wasn't lying because there never was a shoebox on the top shelf. I don't think reilly was a idiot, he knew after a while he had a winlwss case. I feel no lawyer would have won it I agree Reilly had little to work with but he could have made a better go of it if he'd been in his right mind before and during the trial. His best days were well behind him and really all he had working for him was his past reputation. In any case, Anna apparently wasn't taken in by him this time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2019 8:50:38 GMT -5
I don't think reilly was a idiot, he knew after a while he had a winlwss case. I feel no lawyer would have won it Might have helped if he didn't drink, didn't dance drunk in the street in front of the Jury, didn't say he believed Hauptmann guilty in front of the Jury, actually interviewed witnesses, spoke to his client, and gotten treatment for his STD. I also think challenging the corpus delecti, as the Defense Team had planned, might have been a good strategy to pursue as well.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 24, 2019 8:44:05 GMT -5
I don't think reilly was a idiot, he knew after a while he had a winlwss case. I feel no lawyer would have won it I agree Reilly had little to work with but he could have made a better go of it if he'd been in his right mind before and during the trial. His best days were well behind him and really all he had working for him was his past reputation. In any case, Anna apparently wasn't taken in by him this time. I don't think anybody would have got Hauptman off. even leobowtiz didn't jump in, he only wanted a confession hired by everlyn mclean
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2019 10:37:03 GMT -5
I don't think anybody would have got Hauptman off. even leobowtiz didn't jump in, he only wanted a confession hired by everlyn mclean His position was an interesting one. He was convinced Hauptmann was involved but absolutely did not believe he operated by himself. One of his main points was that no one was stupid enough to utilize that ladder alone on a windy night because it could blow over and leave the Kidnapper trapped in the room.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 24, 2019 19:13:10 GMT -5
From a strictly medical point of view, Reilly was suffering from organic brain syndrome, in all likelihood caused by alcoholism, syphilis (which was listed as his cause of death five years later), or both. His brain rot could have easily accounted for just about all his inappropriate behavior and mental errors surrounding the trial. One can easily imagine that the associate defense attorneys at the trial - men like Fisher, Pope, and Rosecrans - would be teed off at Reilly's antics and that the less than optimal relations between the attorneys hampered the defense's strategy and presentations at trial, thus helping to seal Hauptmann's fate.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 25, 2019 11:01:22 GMT -5
I don't think anybody would have got Hauptman off. even leobowtiz didn't jump in, he only wanted a confession hired by everlyn mclean His position was an interesting one. He was convinced Hauptmann was involved but absolutely did not believe he operated by himself. One of his main points was that no one was stupid enough to utilize that ladder alone on a windy night because it could blow over and leave the Kidnapper trapped in the room.
Agreed that Reilly could have made a very good case for the participation of others, but he had little more than theories and insinuation. Hauptmann was also being tried under the felony murder doctrine, so all the Crown had to do was show he was involved. They obviously did that and then some. I've often wondered if a competent lead defense counsel could have presented enough evidence to somehow have a mistrial declared, given even the burden of evidential weight against Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2019 8:49:49 GMT -5
Agreed that Reilly could have made a very good case for the participation of others, but he had little more than theories and insinuation. Hauptmann was also being tried under the felony murder doctrine, so all the Crown had to do was show he was involved. They obviously did that and then some. I've often wondered if a competent lead defense counsel could have presented enough evidence to somehow have a mistrial declared, given even the burden of evidential weight against Hauptmann. I'm no Lawyer which is why I've gone to the documentation in order to understand this common law burglary approach. I know there are people who think they know better about what happened back then - but I'd rather rely on those Lawyers who were involved at THAT specific time and actually formulated the Prosecution itself. So no - there was a little more requirement than to show he was merely involved. If that was the case there would have been no need AT ALL to hire Harold Fisher to assist with this backdoor charge. Fact is - if that child died sometime AFTER the supposed "burglary" that would have made it a whole different ball game. It's all right there in the documentation for anyone interested to look at it for themselves.
|
|