|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 8, 2010 9:47:44 GMT -5
the jury had better evidence against hauptmann. i dont believe this had any impact on the case. besides it wasnt the staes fault that reilly was unprepared
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2010 5:41:38 GMT -5
Hiding exculpatory evidence is the Defense's fault? Giving them 2-1/2 months to "prepare" is the Defense's fault? The State knowingly using perjured testimony is the Defense's fault? Bribing and threatening Defense Witnesses and Investigators is the Defense's fault? Bribing a Defense Attorney to "switch sides" is the Defense's fault?
I don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 7:44:34 GMT -5
it isnt the states fault that mrs hauptmann changed lawyers. i know hearst papers paid for him but it was a mistake. i dont buy any of the bribe stuff, there was enough evidence to convict him and hauptman was a bad witness on the stand for himself
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2010 18:20:57 GMT -5
1. They should have been given more time.
2. Reilly was ineffective, incompetent, and by admitting corpus delicti was working for the Prosecution.
3. Wilentz bribed Foster. The NJSP bribed Whited. Large introduced Fawcett to the Court. Under the Law, only a NJ Defense Counsel could do that. But $8000 convinced him to switch sides so when the Trial began he was sitting on at the Prosecution Table armed with all the inside information concerning the Defense strategies. Where I grew up that's both unethical and a bribe. Witnesses were tampered with. They were told if they testified a certain way they would face criminal charges.
I could go on and on but I think you get the point.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 10, 2010 19:13:28 GMT -5
Michael wrote about Reilly's incompetence. I'll venture to add to that, that Reilly wasn't hired to actually DEFEND Hauptman. What do you think?
Wolf2 speaks of Hauptman making a bad witness for himself. In my view not enough is given to the fact of his having to translate from English to German, then back from German to English to answer. I can see BRH's "Stop that! Stop that!" to (Snake-oil)Wilentz's rapid-fire, yelling questions as an outgrowth of the translation difficulties. Add to that his lack of knowledge about the American courtroom system. Whatever one believes of BRH's guilt, IMHO, this trial was fully shameful and in my own mind I have to question whether one can call it justice.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 19:18:43 GMT -5
I DONT THINK HE HAD TRANSLATING PROBLEMS. IF HE DID HIS LAWYER SCREWED UP AGAIN. I DONT THINK THE TRIAL WAS SHAMEFUL
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2010 6:06:00 GMT -5
I do believe at one time Reilly was a good Lawyer. But during this trial his interests were divided, he refused to cooperate with Co-Counsel, refused to speak to his Client, he had syphilis, and a serious alcohol problem.
That didn't make for a good Defense.
All those things I listed were just the tip of the iceberg concerning the shameful conduct of the State.
Hauptmann would hear English, translate it into German in his head, formulate a response in German in his head, translate that response into English in his head, then would respond.
There was much more "craziness" going on in that Courtroom then history records. I promise to bring this out in my book.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 11, 2010 20:00:58 GMT -5
mike ive seen no evidence that he had syphilis. but if you have the document id like to see it. as far as hasuptmann understanding english. my view is either you know it or you dont. he seems to me he answered the questions no problem
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2010 6:06:51 GMT -5
It's in a couple of different sources that I have.... After he went to the mental hospital there was a hearing for him to get out and I think another for him to be able to continue to practice. If I come across it here or in other places I will cite them.
Hauptmann could speak english but how he processed the information in his brain in order to speak it was what is important. It's why he asked people to slow down. He did it with some of the Reporters too.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 12, 2010 11:25:32 GMT -5
i live a couple of towns over from kings park mental hospital, thats where he was. its abandoned now. you only hear he had a nervous breakdown
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 18, 2010 4:33:20 GMT -5
He was certainly a drunk, but if you look at his health problems he most likely died of liver failure. He had an extended stomach as is shown in court (photos included) and reporter's records, he had the bulbus nose, he was known to drink pretty constantly, he had no weight loss which accompanies syphlyss - nor visible body sores. Probably just liver failure due to young old age. Syphlis in 1935 or today is a fairly rare disease. Talking like one of a million and deaths are very rare. Plus it can be treated and could be (contrary to what people say and think or believe) in 1935. So if he had S he probably would have gotten fixed, but you can't fix liver problems.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 18, 2010 4:41:46 GMT -5
And, Michael - in 1934 exculpatory evidence equated to B.S. Even today it isn't much unless it can be discovered. A lot of what Barry Sheck is doing right now is not DNA, but rather looking into old cases and finding that the justice system had enough evidence to exhonerate people - people who have been down for ten, twenty years.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2010 17:25:01 GMT -5
Maybe the Courts allowed more of this nonsense back then.... It seems that way. But it doesn't make what happened "BS" by any stretch.
Judge Trenchard's charge to the Jury made it obvious to everyone present what verdict he wanted.... That wouldn't happen nowadays would it? But it because of these past wrongs that safe-guards are in place to prevent them from happening.
During one of the Gaston Means trial the Judge called a witness a "liar" and although he was slammed for it they didn't overturn the verdict. And so by pointing out a Judge couldn't get away with that today doesn't make it less of an issue then.
It's just that they got away with it.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 7:22:46 GMT -5
mike, i was up in that attic, the wires ran under alot of boards. This is true. What access did removing that one piece of board give them that wasn't required for the other wires? The underside of the board was still accessible even when the missing piece was in place? The boards didn't cover the whole floor, you could get under them. Easily.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2012 8:48:14 GMT -5
Study the situation. That's not to say it was impossible without doing so. But it made the task easier and for an Electrician trying to get through the job what do they care for a rough attic floor? Depends on the guy doing the job. Exactly how Rail 16 was removed shows it wasn't done by a Carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 9:45:57 GMT -5
Study the situation. That's not to say it was impossible without doing so. But it made the task easier and for an Electrician trying to get through the job what do they care for a rough attic floor? Depends on the guy doing the job. Exactly how Rail 16 was removed shows it wasn't done by a Carpenter. Why was the job easier by removing the rail? Like I said the exposed area was very accessible with the board in place, it was open at the side.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 9:51:52 GMT -5
Why did the wood not need removing at this end of the floor? There is at least one wire and maybe more this end.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 26, 2012 14:03:15 GMT -5
i dont understand your question
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 26, 2012 14:08:42 GMT -5
but mike anna hauptmann had a choice but got a lawyer for free. we know now she should have stuck with the first one. he might have done a little better but might have been the same result. i dont think fawcett would have put on the stand crappy witnesess like reilly did. i always thought reilly shouldnt have say the baby was the lindbergh baby, and fisher stormed out of the courtroom. but alot of big time lawyers told me it was a brilliant move. i cant argue it since im not a lawyer
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2012 18:38:48 GMT -5
No Lawyer would have done well under those circumstances. The State hid away exculpatory evidence, hired one of the Pre-Trial Defense Lawyers (Large) to join the State in order to obtain the Defense strategy before trial, and used and/or encouraged Witnesses to lie or embellish things.
Reilly wasn't right at the time. He was suffering from VD and alcoholism. He didn't properly consult with the rest of the Defense Team, didn't talk to Hauptmann enough, and didn't use some Witnesses who were ready to testify who everyone on the Defense expected would.
It wasn't a brilliant move to admit corpus delecti. It was the one point Wilentz was concerned about - and rightfully so. I think his secret meeting with Reilly may have had something to do with this although I must admit that is just my speculation - I obviously wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 11, 2012 19:51:13 GMT -5
i dont think he had VD at all at the time. like i said some big lawyers i talked to said it was a good move. i was surprised myself. they told me they think reilly didnt want a picture of the dead baby in the courtroom for the jury to see.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2012 16:44:22 GMT -5
Why not?
That would be a good reason if there wasn't any doubt. However, Fawcett was planning on calling VanIngen who was prepared to say he couldn't swear to it being him (and who knows what else). If the Jury wasn't convinced it was CharlesJr. then you have no conviction. If they were then you are no worse off because you are claiming Hauptmann wasn't in Hopewell - ever - and the only Witnesses they had to prove he was perjured themselves.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2012 20:32:58 GMT -5
Well Michael, Wolf's right, and as for you, I guess you've never been before a judge. They say and do whatever they like - and if they don't like you is bad!
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Nov 8, 2012 8:22:08 GMT -5
Professed inability to understand why BRH would have used that floorboard ignores the patently obvious : Koehler's excellent work shows that it was used : there is no need to explain exactly why it was used. To me, there is simply no credible evidence of a second kidnapper or that CJ was anyone other than BRH, nor was there any need for one. Those who claim the crime was a difficult one are incorrect - it was quite simple and was completely botched at that. BRH failed miserably : he killed the baby, which, except for Lindbergh's foolish actions, would have normally meant no ransom, and also left a very large piece of incriminating evidence at the scene - a uniquely fashioned ladder that could be linked directly to him. BRH's actions thruout the entire episode show him to be a very stupid fellow and a very consistent liar. In my mind, if BRH had an assistant at the abduction scene, it would have been unlikely for the baby to have been dropped or any need to abandon the ladder at the scene. And there was no physical evidence of a second party immediately after the police arrived. Someone claimed two sets of footprints (as reported by a policeman) meant two kidnappers, but anyone going to the scene also had to leave the scene and would have to leave two sets of footprints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 21:47:57 GMT -5
Hello Arthur and welcome to this discussion board. It is a great place to share ideas, opinions and research. You will gain much knowledge about the Lindbergh kidnapping case participating on this board. Just have a couple of comments on your post.
First I would like to know what you mean by credible evidence. If you consider Dr. Condon credible in his description of CJ then you must agree that CJ had a serious condition because of the type of coughing he was exhibiting the first time Condon met with him. Condon describes it as such. Condon also said that CJ had a lump at the base of his thumb. BRH had neither of the things Condon says CJ had.
At Woodlawn cemetery both Condon and Al Reich saw a lookout there. At St. Raymond's cemetery, Lindbergh himself (I am sure you find him credible) said he saw a lookout also.
Lookouts would mean that CJ was not alone when he met with Condon each time. Then there is the phone call Condon received before the meeting at Woodlawn. Condon says there was an Italian in the background who told CJ to shut up. So CJ was not alone when he made that phone call.
These are just a few of the points that show there was someone else working with CJ.
The two sets of footprints you mention are well documented by the first officers on the scene. The issue with these prints is that they all lead away from the scene. None of them are incoming to the scene. The two sets are two people leaving the scene not one person who comes and then leaves.
I highly recommend reading Lloyd Gardner's book. It is packed with well documented facts about this case. I have learned much by reading it.
|
|