|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 1:55:23 GMT -5
This is very interesting to me. Note the way Lindbergh uses his wording when he answers the question asked, "What happened from then on?" (by Reilly for defense.)
Q. Finally, at about ten o'clock in the evening Miss Gow spoke to you about the child, did she not? A. About ten o'clock. Q. Where were you then? A. I was reading in the library. Q. What happened, tell us, then? A. Miss Gow called to me in a rather excited voice and asked me if I had the baby. Q. What happened from then on? A. I immediately went upstairs into the nursery and from the appearance of the room I realized, and from the appearance of the crib I realized that something had gone wrong. Q. What was the appearance of the room that indicated to you that something had gone wrong, Colonel?
Sometimes the truth slips out in a lie...he doesn't say, "Something wasn't right...." he says he REALIZES something HAD GONE WRONG.
Am I being too sightful here or is this a slip of the tongue?
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 7, 2011 3:15:45 GMT -5
Hauptmann Trial Transcript also has a question, to Lindbergh from Reilly, about the WRITING TABLE's location in the library below the nursery's sash window. He again refers to the WRITING TABLE to Lindbergh and adds the fact that Lindbergh was WRITING at this WRITING TABLE. Lindbergh points where the WRITING TABLE would be located on the trial blue print bulletin for the court and jurors to see. Reilly repeats the phrase referring to Lindy Writing instead of READING and Lindbergh takes the HINT and corrects his term of speech from READING to WRITING. Hmmmmm? Was this another slip give away. Could he have been possibly writing a Ransom Note instead of reading??? After the LEADING CORRECTION FROM THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, the subject is quickly changed to the TIME FRAME instead of the ACTIONS of Lindbergh at this WRITING TABLE ...by Reilly(defense lawyer). Hauptmann Trial Transcript; Lindbergh testimony page 79 question 3, www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/testimony%20CAL.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2011 16:41:38 GMT -5
I think these types of things are often overlooked. It's important to take note of them for future consideration. I missed this and thankful for you pointing it out.
It's possible whoever wrote the ransom note may not have been the one who came up with what should be in it but there's never been a shred of evidence to show Lindbergh penned out even the 1st ransom note.
What you've noticed is interesting, however, its my belief this line was meant more to show or imply Lindbergh would have seen the ladder had it been there when he was at the desk.
I do believe he would have, and I also believe the "Kidnappers" had already left the area by that time and the ladder had already been removed to where it was later found.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 9, 2011 22:06:48 GMT -5
Michael, I also believe that Reilly was actually getting to the visibility of the ladder, I feel the way he introduced it was a mistake. After he caught it (Relliy), I think he was more or less re-questioning about it to bide more time to think his way out of the mistake and self-correcting it (or leaving an opening to continue if he and W were not already in cahoots). I am sure after the distinction and correction was noticed and voiced by Lindberg, the deed with the DA obviously already existed, he took the opportunity to run in the original direction...and kept hightaling it that way.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 9, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
I think it is rather odd for Reilly to keep refering to the WRITING TABLE, when everyone else called it a desk. I think every word for this type of defense is carefully prepared by lawyers so an opening is left for a way to present another argument...maybe Reilly slipped up, or maybe he was repeating the terms to have time to think on how to get by it unnoticed (which he apparently pulled off). Just some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2011 8:22:00 GMT -5
There are a couple of reasons, in my opinion, to suspect Reilly was in a collusion (of sorts) with Wilentz. Even Fawcett was looking the other way at times in order to free up some of Hauptmann's cash.
Next, in terms of Reilly "approach." I do see where you are coming from and I am really enjoying your angle. But let me inject a variable or two....
According to Lloyd Fisher, Reilly got drunk each and every night. His morning sessions suffered because he was "hung-over." He would have a couple at lunch, so according to Fisher, his afternoons were a little better. Hard to prepare when you're out getting smashed. Furthermore, none of his Co-Counsel knew what the hell he was going to do or say. What he did tell them he would do sometimes happened - and sometimes did not. He visited Hauptmann once or twice for a very short period of time.
It was a perfect storm for the State.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 10, 2011 11:49:19 GMT -5
Lindbergh was actually the one who brought the desk up first. He refers to it as a desk, yet Reilly presents it as a WRITING TABLE shortly afterwards...which, to me, seems to indicate intentions of a different angle (at first maybe?).
So do you feel he may have simply lost his trail of thought (because of the drinking effects)?
He does seem to be disgruntled by Lindbergh's correction ("I was reading."). He asks confusingly, "Reading?" and Lindbergh says, "At that desk; reading." Then both carry on calling it a desk instead of writing table.
I know this may not seem big, but at times the little pieces make the rest of the puzzle fit together...
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 10, 2011 12:53:43 GMT -5
I am sorry for the blunder, but the incident I am refering to about the desk was actually between WILENTZ and LINDBERGH...wow! My mistake....this certainly was a HUGE DETAIL for prosecution to be questioning Lindy with this choice of wording....writing, writing table (most certainly was a slip...maybe Lindbergh was writing after all)....MAJOR BREAK MAYBE....and noone picked up on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2011 7:04:15 GMT -5
You can take it to the bank that Wilentz had a reason for every question. He did what you expected Reilly to do.
(There was so much that was not above board. So much that was hidden away or manipulated. I am still working on my 2nd chapter, and can I be bold enough to predict my 1st has already solved the Case? And as I write this 2nd, I still continue to find NEW material to add. This is an unbelievable crime through and through.)
I also wanted to insert syphilis to the list of Reilly's problems. Several sources say he was suffering from it during the trial. And eventually he would be in a Mental Hospital due to a "break-down."
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 11, 2011 9:00:15 GMT -5
I also wanted to insert syphilis to the list of Reilly's problems. Several sources say he was suffering from it during the trial. And eventually he would be in a Mental Hospital due to a "break-down." (Michael)
Michael, I have also read that Reilly had syphilis was admitted to an assylum, but somewhere else I read that this was not true. Do you know for a fact he had it?
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 11, 2011 9:09:43 GMT -5
You can take it to the bank that Wilentz had a reason for every question. He did what you expected Reilly to do. (Michael) So why would Wilentz refer to the desk as a writing table? What are your thoughts on his reasoning here with the choice of words??? Does he appear a little confused to you (with Lindbergh's correction) or was this intentional?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2011 16:42:33 GMT -5
I don't have a medical report. But I remember, among other things, reading one of the Reporters said there was no doubt in his mind having shared the bathroom with him. What is your source that he did not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2011 16:54:21 GMT -5
I don't see anything nefarious behind it. I continue to believe it was an effort to show Lindbergh was busy and/or occupied. He's reading, he's writing, he's both reading AND writing. Taken this with the explanation concerning the positioning of the desk, Wilentz (imo) was trying to pre-empt any Defense effort to claim the steps were used (inside job) by dispelling the idea the ladder wasn't utilized and just a blind.
The idea Lindbergh wrote the ransom note was first suggested by A&M ( I believe) but I've examined this idea, to the point of ad nauseam, and have totally written that idea off.
But that's just me. I do not want to deter anyone from pursuing something that doesn't sit well in their stomach. There's enough unsolved material in this Case for each and everyone of us to be right about some things, then wrong about others.... I am neither exempt nor immune from that fact.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 11, 2011 19:25:31 GMT -5
I don't have a medical report. But I remember, among other things, reading one of the Reporters said there was no doubt in his mind having shared the bathroom with him. What is your source that he did not? 12. Wasn't Hauptmann's lawyer not only incompetent, but suffering from syphilis and alcoholism as well? And what about the nickname “Death House” Reilly and his “ladder” stationery? Ans: Edward J. Reilly (53) had won many murder acquittals in Brooklyn, NY and received a favorable 4-page profile in the Jan. 12, 1935 New Yorker magazine. Medical records at Kings County Hospital show no sign of venereal disease, alcoholism, or cirrhosis of the liver; a penchant for “orange blossoms” may have been exaggerated; he died Xmas Day, 1946, at the age of 65 (from a stroke). From Jan 30, 1937 - Mar 23, 1938, he was held at Kings Park State Hospital ("non compos mentis"), following a rancorous divorce from his third wife; he eventually argued a writ of habeas corpus and returned to the practice of law, and to the Brooklyn home of his mother Helen, who originally had him committed. Hauptmann's legal team also included experienced NJ attorneys Lloyd Fisher, Frederick Pope, and Egbert Rosecrans. No issue of defective representation was ever made although the case was appealed up to (and rejected by) the US Supreme Court (on other grounds). Reilly's supposed sobriquet is unattested except for some Underworld comments made at the beginning of his career - he subsequently was quite successful. A blank example of the stationery (unused) was published in 1936, but Reilly did not claim any connection between his client and the infamous ladder - he considered it a "prop." lindytruth.org/Lindy1.htmMore Crime of the Century FAQs!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 11, 2011 19:45:03 GMT -5
hi hunley, researching this case and living near that hospital he was in, ive never seen medical evidence that he had VD. we know that his lawyer fought to get him ouit of kings park hospital from old newsday articles, he had a nervous breakdown. i believe hje didnt have it during the trial, but he had a lousy client that he shouldnt have put on the stand
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 1:22:51 GMT -5
hi hunley, researching this case and living near that hospital he was in, ive never seen medical evidence that he had VD. we know that his lawyer fought to get him ouit of kings park hospital from old newsday articles, he had a nervous breakdown. i believe hje didnt have it during the trial, but he had a lousy client that he shouldn't have put on the stand Hello Wolf2, Thanks for replying to my post. I also read he had a breakdown, and was admitted shortly after the trial. To be frank, I feel the absolute best attorney in the country would have been incapable of getting a client off when he was a German carpenter who lived in the Bronx, had spent the ransom notes in the vicinity, and the money spent was for the safe return of the Hero's offspring. And if that's not enough, put the defendant on the stand and risk the attitude he portrayed to the spectators and jury... What was Reilly thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2011 10:34:04 GMT -5
Thank you for giving me your source which is the notorious personality known as "Allen."
I refer to him as the Minister of Disinformation. I used to research the things he would post in order to verify them and found, more often then not, he was either wrong or simply made it up. He's claimed to have documents he did not. He quotes documents with no such quote in them. In fact, he has invented dialog then uses that fantasy to counter argue a point. He's said he's had Police Reports which turned out to be Newspaper reports. Etc. etc. etc.
He is a dubious source - at best.
May have been exaggerated? This comes directly from his co-counsel Lloyd Fisher, and just about everyone else who witnessed it at the Union Hotel. To even claim this might be an exaggeration is delusional.
For what its worth - that's my experience with him. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again, so I don't want to say he is always wrong, but do be careful when reading his "material."
You would have to have his medical file after 2/35 to see a diagnosis. VD was treatable so even if you had something it would have to cover the dates in question. I don't know if he did or did not, but everyone who was around him seemed to be saying he did. Could it be it was assumed since he was in the company of Prostitutes throughout? Or could it be that when the Reporter witnessed what he did in the bathroom he just wasn't seeing what he thought he was?
Personally, I thought it was probable he did. Once I read the Reporter's account I personally believe he did. You can't make that stuff up, but of course, I wasn't there.
I think admitting the Corpus Delicti ruined their case. Reilly did that. It's the single most important move that placed Hauptmann in the chair. The Jury also hated him, and that didn't help. Whatever his record was, Reilly was incompetent during this trial. Some things showed intelligence, but other moves were just unexplainable.
I am not sure about this one. Unfortunately, the ethics cannon went out the window, therefore, any Defense would have been under a considerable handicap with the Judge and Prosecution they faced.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2011 15:20:16 GMT -5
A quick look-see through my "Reilly" file revealed that Reilly had:
Checked himself into Mt. Sinai Hospital shortly after the trial complaining he had been unwell during the trial (Mantz, NYSBAJ, Vol. 77, No. 5, p17, 2005 - Owls Shouldn't Claw at Eagles)
His own Doctor, in several newspaper articles, declared he had a "breakdown" due to both his divorce and the Hauptmann trial as his reason for being admitted to the Mental Hospital in '37.
His wife cited his constant drunkeness in her divorce complaint, as well as references to his utilizing the services of Prostitutes.
His release from Kings Park State Hospital was opposed by the Hospital, who diagnosed him with general paresis, and the Assistant DA claimed Reilly was suffering "from the ravages of a certain social disease that made him a mentally sick person" in his arguement to keep him in the hospital. (Mantz, p17)
I haven't finished the file, and didn't even open up Lloyd Fisher's, Pope's, Rosencranz, or Hoffman's files yet.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jan 12, 2011 18:27:24 GMT -5
ive never seen any medical documentation saying he had VD, it dosnt mean he had it during the trial. after who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2011 18:54:22 GMT -5
I haven't either, but isn't the testimony of a Doctor and the Assistant DA proof concerning his medical problem prove he did have it?
Then there was Mt. Sinai Hospital check-in which his Wife claimed was an "infected leg" he "thought" had been cured but discovered during the trial it was not. Huh? Then when the Reporters asked him Reilly gave no comment.
Leg infection?
I believe the Reporter saw what he claimed to have seen when Reilly was attempting to urinate. Something was infected and it wasn't his leg.
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 19:15:14 GMT -5
A quick look-see through my "Reilly" file revealed that Reilly had: Checked himself into Mt. Sinai Hospital shortly after the trial complaining he had been unwell during the trial ( Mantz, NYSBAJ, Vol. 77, No. 5, p17, 2005 - Owls Shouldn't Claw at Eagles) His own Doctor, in several newspaper articles, declared he had a "breakdown" due to both his divorce and the Hauptmann trial as his reason for being admitted to the Mental Hospital in '37. His wife cited his constant drunkeness in her divorce complaint, as well as references to his utilizing the services of Prostitutes. His release from Kings Park State Hospital was opposed by the Hospital, who diagnosed him with general paresis, and the Assistant DA claimed Reilly was suffering "from the ravages of a certain social disease that made him a mentally sick person" in his arguement to keep him in the hospital. ( Mantz, p17) I haven't finished the file, and didn't even open up Lloyd Fisher's, Pope's, Rosencranz, or Hoffman's files yet. Michael, Well, I have to say it sounds like you are right. Syphilis does work on the brain, however, I do not (thank GOODNESS) know what it looks like and what the reporter may have explained he saw (although reporters are not very good sources, remember Jafsie's phone number incident? Sometimes they will do or say things to get a story)...I'll research that disease, I do know it works on the brain, but, I do not think it was curable by that stage (at least in that era). (I'll look it up). I am certainly not educated on syphilis and with you writing a book, I am sure you have firm research to back it up.You obviously have a great start, but I do not see anyone call it specifically SYPHILIS in your references, except the reporter(who again for the reasons above could be questionable). WHEN WILL YOUR BOOK BE READY? I am anxiously awaiting it. I am not very talented in law, but I like reading up on what is available free online in the LKC...I hope some of the information I pointed out is useful in helping you seek out more information. I have noticed some things on this board about Allen, and when I went back for my references to show you, I was afraid it was the same one. But that's where it came from...
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 19:29:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 19:52:31 GMT -5
I'm still reading up on this, but this is a shortened portion of a website defining SYPHILIS. It's a nasty disease with many stages and signs and symptoms are different from person to person. A body rash rash covers a person's trunk in one stage that may or may not be noticeable to others. It is, however, treatable with antibiotics. I did not know that. It can lead to death if not treated. Syphilis: What are the signs and symptoms in adults? Many people infected with syphilis do not have any symptoms for years, yet remain at risk for late complications if they are not treated. Although transmission occurs from persons with sores who are in the primary or secondary stage, many of these sores are unrecognized. Thus, transmission may occur from persons who are unaware of their infection.... Late stages: Without treatment, the infected person will continue to have syphilis even though there are no signs or symptoms; infection remains in the body. This latent stage can last for years. The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10–20 years after infection was first acquired. In the late stages of syphilis, the disease may subsequently damage the internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones, and joints. Signs and symptoms of the late stage of syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, paralysis, numbness, gradual blindness, and dementia. This damage may be serious enough to cause death. www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htmWith Reilly's reputation with the women and prostitutes, I do not doubt he had it...GROSS!
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 19:59:20 GMT -5
hi hunley, researching this case and living near that hospital he was in, ive never seen medical evidence that he had VD. we know that his lawyer fought to get him ouit of kings park hospital from old newsday articles, he had a nervous breakdown. i believe hje didnt have it during the trial, but he had a lousy client that he shouldnt have put on the stand Wolf2, After reading Michaels information and research, I do not doubt he had it. I have to say, even though all odds were against Hauptmann with the representation he had for counselors, I now think Reilly brought up some pretty good points and arguments, just not good enough. I do not think it was wise to put him on the stand... maybe this was common in that era??? It's not a move most defense would use presently, especially in a murder case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2011 20:22:23 GMT -5
This is what Al Capone had....
Honestly, I never planned on putting this in. I simply mentioned it due to the thread and what I knew about it. There is so much information that you must choose what to write about and what not to. Or you can do what Jones did and write a 10000 page book. You never know, I may find a way to insert what I know to complement something.....
This work will take me a while. I am still on the 2nd chapter. I pitched an idea to a magazine recently so I am open to that as well. I am laying out all the new stuff and fixing all the old that was wrong. What I have found is that an Author will be mistaken about something then each and every Author afterwards uses them as their source (or the source they relied on) concerning whatever that point is. So the mistake is repeated time and time again and again.
My biggest problem is having so many sources that it takes a very long time to nail down just one point. Just know the 1st Chapter is a real eye opener. What I am working on now will include something equally as shocking. And whoever doesn't like what's written won't be able to say its incorrect because I will have all the sources to back it up.
I write reports for a living and my English 101 was that hardest class I ever took in College. So obviously I am not a Writer. This is a major challenge for me. It will get done, but exactly when is just a guess at this point.
I also wanted to say that you are right about Reporters. However, some were better then others. Some were more reliable and some less. When you read their stuff, like I have over these last 10+ years you tend to better know (or at least its my opinion) who is what. Know what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by hunley2 on Jan 12, 2011 20:32:47 GMT -5
I am glad you are not repeating information with unreliable sources, just last night I was reading an excerpt from a book that had everyone in the wrong places with the wrong people, compared to the sources I had read from prior. It keeps me confused. I guess after a while I will recognize which are trustworthy...WON'T I???
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2011 7:10:12 GMT -5
One of the things that is great about this Case is that you will find multiple sources in which many conflict. As a result its easy to lean towards those which support your position while disregarding those that do not. It's human nature. And so even sources can be challenged, but I caution that one could find a reason to call into question each and every one of them. And so it requires evaluating what the greater weight of evidence is. Exactly how that is done is based upon each Researcher's system or experiences in one way or another.
Therefore, challenges are necessary in order to assist in this process. It's why I asked you for your source on Reilly because if it hadn't been Allen - I would have had to take a serious look at it and give it consideration.
Again, I am not above being wrong. Steve has gotten me a few times as has everyone else here. It's a process, and how I fine tune my facts. So if there's something I say that doesn't seem right then by all means please bring it up.
|
|