|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2007 19:48:41 GMT -5
From Lloyd Fisher's undated Manuscript: Reilly was, as I have said, funny. I remember the night he made the statement, in a moment of exaltation, that on a certain day he would announce the names of the four kidnappers of the Lindbergh baby. On further questioning by the eager press, he specified that there would be two men and two women. After he had calmed down, I said:
"Ed, you shouldn't have done that."
"What?" he said.
Then I told him what he had said.
"Well," he blustered, "There's Isadore Fisch, he's dead, and there's Whately the butler, and Violet Sharpe, and - "
He stopped suddenly, and his face went from red to purple as he searched for another victim whom he could safely accuse of the crime.
"Jesus Christ!" he yelled. "Where'll I get another dead woman?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2009 9:55:43 GMT -5
A FEW DAYS AGO Edward J. Reilly, presenting a different picture then that of the jaunty, colorful counsel for Bruno Richard Hauptmann, appeared before Justice Benjamin Brenner in the small-claims division of the Municipal Court . . . The man who once had been selected from among the foremost criminal lawyers in America to defend the former German machine-gunner accused of kidnaping the Lindbergh baby this time was asking the court to grant a $10 judgment . . . "I'll do more then that." the wise and humane Judge Brenner assured . . . "But can you?" asked the forgetful Reilly . . . "Yes, I'll make it $15," reminded the jurist. "That's the amount of your claim." [Leonard Lyons - The New Yorker - Washington Post, 10-26-39 - page 9]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2016 22:13:26 GMT -5
Here is Edward J. Reilly's theory about the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping in May 1932, the day after the child's body was found. He thought he had it all figured out!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Dec 5, 2016 9:22:12 GMT -5
seems like F. Lee Bailey was the Edward J. Reilly of his time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2016 19:01:07 GMT -5
Here's his famous letterhead we've all heard about:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2016 10:30:42 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the letterhead. What an insulting thing for a defense attorney to do! I suppose Reilly used Hauptmann defense money to have this letterhead printed. Here is a comment Reilly made to reporters concerning this stationery. This man is unbelievable!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Dec 8, 2016 3:52:36 GMT -5
it's hard to imagine say F. Lee Bailey (to use my own example) or Johnny Cochran using a bloody glove on their letterhead. couldn't any of BRHs subsequent lawyers argue to an appeals court that Hauptmann did not receive an adequate defense?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2016 10:09:40 GMT -5
The Jury hated this guy. During an interview with a George Hawke in 1951, Robert Cravatt told him: "He thought we were just a bunch of hicks; we found that out in the first couple of days." On another occasion, as Reilly climbed the stairs to see Reporters, Cravatt heard him say: "Hell, what's the use? He's guilty!"
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 17, 2019 22:07:45 GMT -5
In 1935, Reilly told the press that he and David Wilentz are friends and disavow any attacks on him because Wilentz is Jewish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 15:32:12 GMT -5
In 1935, Reilly told the press that he and David Wilentz are friends and disavow any attacks on him because Wilentz is Jewish.
I don't know how much truth there is to Reilly's claim that Wilentz "is one of my dearest friends and he has relatives in Brooklyn who are also my friends." If this is so, it explains the very poor defense Reilly conducted for his client. I thought that a lawyer was supposed to check his personal attachments at the door and put forth his best efforts on behalf of his client. Edward J. Reilly apparently did neither.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 18, 2019 19:04:28 GMT -5
In evaluating Reilly's thinking and behavior during and shortly after the Hauptmann trial, it is important to take into account that he was likely suffering from advanced syphilis affecting his brain at the time. (See Noel Behn, Lindbergh: The Crime, paperback edition, pp. 429-430). So his whole persona and his mental functions would be adversely affected by his illness, possibly compounded by the effects of alcoholism. Nothing funny there. If Reilly had been healthy and sharper mentally, things may have unfolded differently.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 18, 2019 22:01:45 GMT -5
In 1935, Reilly told the press that he and David Wilentz are friends and disavow any attacks on him because Wilentz is Jewish.
I don't know how much truth there is to Reilly's claim that Wilentz "is one of my dearest friends and he has relatives in Brooklyn who are also my friends." If this is so, it explains the very poor defense Reilly conducted for his client. I thought that a lawyer was supposed to check his personal attachments at the door and put forth his best efforts on behalf of his client. Edward G. Reilly apparently did neither. Defrauding America by Rodney Stich explained that lawyers often cripple their own clients allowing them to be convicted to satisfy a debt to their adversary's legal counsel or to placate a judge who may want the other party to prevail.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 23, 2019 18:03:58 GMT -5
was asking for a new trial based on bad legal consul or poor representation not a thing at that time? if anyone could have claimed his case was handled poorly it was BRH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 21:15:39 GMT -5
The defense did file the customary appeal for BRH to overturn the verdict based on the errors they believed took place during the Flemington trial. Fisher, Pope and Rosecrans filed all the appeals that were possible but all of them were rejected by the higher courts. I believe Edward J. Reilly tried to sue Anna Hauptmann for attorney fees he believed he was owed.
|
|