|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 20, 2015 15:17:19 GMT -5
That would be Noel Behn, I'm presuming. Behn did not merely "jump on" Elisabeth without reason. The involvement of Elisabeth was told to Behn personally by Gov. Hoffman's confidante and lawyer back at the time Hoffman's office was doing a reinvestigation of the events, a man named Harry Green.
Perhaps one reason that Elisabeth wasn't mentioned much in the crime data (except for Schwarzkopf's notes as posted by Michael) was that after Hauptmann's capture, all other suspects unconnected to Hauptmann were conveniently forgotten about.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 20, 2015 15:25:59 GMT -5
Well, they had about three years to figure it out and came up with nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 20, 2015 20:43:56 GMT -5
Wouldn't quite agree there. Hauptmann was in possession of a good chunk of ransom loot, which is something, Obviously he couldn't have done the whole thing by himself, contrary to Wilentz's fervent but illogical argument.
As for Elisabeth, recall that she died of natural causes less than a month before the Hauptmann trial began, so to bring her into it as a suspect at that point would have been kind of futile as far as law enforcement was concerned.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 20, 2015 21:05:58 GMT -5
Neither had anything to do with the investigation of TLC.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 30, 2015 12:40:34 GMT -5
On the jury site here the issue of Hocmuth's testimony going to the court of appeals came up and I got to thinking about ridiculous attorneys fees, and got to wondering if Anna ever paid the what had to have been very high bills for Richard's attorneys. I'm sure some it them worked without charge, but seems to me that Reilly said something to the effect that she'd have to pay.
I wonder if she thought all of his charges would be paid by Hearst?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 30, 2015 13:18:53 GMT -5
On the jury site here the issue of Hocmuth's testimony going to the court of appeals came up and I got to thinking about ridiculous attorneys fees, and got to wondering if Anna ever paid the what had to have been very high bills for Richard's attorneys. I'm sure some it them worked without charge, but seems to me that Reilly said something to the effect that she'd have to pay. I wonder if she thought all of his charges would be paid by Hearst? That was part of a deal. I believe Hearst would pay for Reilly and his defense if she gave them exclusives. Though I can't speak to how Lloyd Fisher, for example, got paid for helping with his appeals.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2015 18:53:14 GMT -5
On the jury site here the issue of Hocmuth's testimony going to the court of appeals came up and I got to thinking about ridiculous attorneys fees, and got to wondering if Anna ever paid the what had to have been very high bills for Richard's attorneys. I'm sure some it them worked without charge, but seems to me that Reilly said something to the effect that she'd have to pay. I wonder if she thought all of his charges would be paid by Hearst? I have searched for a copy of the contract and I've never found it. If anyone has it I would think it would be Robert Bryan. His original suit (and several amended complaints thereafter) included Hearst so I am quite sure they would have had to surrender it to him - if it ever existed and/or still existed by that time. Regardless, Lloyd Fisher claimed that Reilly was paid an $850 retainer fee out of the $3750 Hauptmann mortgage that was available to the Defense leaving only $2900 for the other Attorneys, and their costs associated with the Trial. Since Reilly was the "Chief Counsel" he was in control of these funds at that time. He abused this fund by adding his bar tabs, and padding the Defense Experts bills and pocketing the difference. For example, he charged the fund $850 for Goodspeed then only paid him $50 (more on this below). As we all know, after the Hauptmann conviction, there were contributions made by the general public that went into a "Defense Fund." Once Reilly was fired by Mrs. Hauptmann because of his bills to her, he sued her to " recover the value of legal services rendered..." apparently making a part of the argument that it had been agreed upon that he was to manage this fund. On June 3, 1935 the Kings County Supreme Court dismissed the case. Eventually, Goodspeed would sue the Defense for his fees, and that's when Fisher, now Chief Counsel, discovered the scope of the theft. At some point Fisher threatened to go to the Bar over this matter at which point Reilly re-paid the Defense $800. That was part of a deal. I believe Hearst would pay for Reilly and his defense if she gave them exclusives. Though I can't speak to how Lloyd Fisher, for example, got paid for helping with his appeals. Jack is right when he suggested Hearst was not responsible for Reilly's entire bill despite the claims made by several books to the contrary. If that was supposed to be the original deal it certainly did not wind up that way. Next, according to Fisher in one of his letters criticizing the fact that Wilentz's Chauffeur was paid $585 by the Tax Payers for "investigative work," he claimed this figure was more then he received. BTW: I was reading through Richard's book to see what he may have said about Reilly when I stumbled onto something he wrote on p311. While apparently conceding that Reilly "drank heavily" (got drunk) at night, he says there was only "anecdotal" evidence he was impaired during the trial. The issue I have is that he seems to be relying on Jim Fisher's book that listed his sources for this. Fisher's book does not contain the only sources for these accusations. Isn't that important to note? For example, does Richard Hauptmann himself make those claims? Does Anna Hauptmann make those claims? Does Lloyd Fisher make those claims? Does Fred Pope make those claims? Does any member of the Jury makes such a claim? If so, it's kind of important right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2015 11:44:59 GMT -5
Though I can't speak to how Lloyd Fisher, for example, got paid for helping with his appeals. I found something more about this as quoted from Lloyd Fisher although it doesn't seem to give us what we're looking for: I didn't do this because of any huge fees that anyone was going to pay me. I could have made more money during this period searching titles and replevining cows! I blush to admit that I had to look up the word "replevin" ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 9:54:44 GMT -5
Michael, I read a story dated March 4, 1932 where it says that an anonymous phone call was received at the Hopewell house in the early hours of that morning. The caller wanted to know if they could be granted immunity if they returned the child. I thought this interesting because when Condon had his first face to face meeting with CJ, Condon was asked this same question about immunity by Cemetery John. Was LE able to trace that call and find out any information on the caller? Here is a link to the newspaper story: news.google.com/newspapers?id=pcYxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_-EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3940%2C576358
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2015 19:03:54 GMT -5
Was LE able to trace that call and find out any information on the caller? Calls came in to various places. In fact, each Troop rec'd calls and made Reports on each of them. Since your article and the one I have (both AP Reports) say the call was made to the "Lindbergh Home" I checked the phones logs for both the 3rd and the 4th to Highfields but didn't see it there. Definitely Captain Lamb was the guy who was kept up to date on all the calls received (from everywhere throughout the State) so he'd be the one to know if such a call came in. Despite it not being listed I tend to believe it, in fact, it seems to me it might have been a Reporter. I make this suggestion because almost immediately the NJSP had been repeatedly peppered with the question as to whether or not Lindbergh would grant immunity and the official response was to evade this specific inquiry up until the point it became known. And so it seems likely a Reporter might try a trick like this to be the first to get that "scoop" for his paper. Or they might try bribe someone inside the home for it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 24, 2015 15:32:21 GMT -5
To amy 35 and All:
The newspaper article you linked to also mentions a (second) note received in the mail "yesterday" (March 3) with "similarity in the handwriting" to the first ransom note left on the window sill on the night of the purported kidnapping. Of course, it is now almost universally agreed that the second ransom note was postmarked from Brooklyn, NY on the evening of March 4 and did not arrive at Lindbergh Estate until the following morning (Apparently the Post Office was much more efficient delivering mail then than it is now.) So what is the newspaper article referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2015 17:05:26 GMT -5
To amy 35 and All: The newspaper article you linked to also mentions a (second) note received in the mail "yesterday" (March 3) with "similarity in the handwriting" to the first ransom note left on the window sill on the night of the purported kidnapping. Of course, it is now almost universally agreed that the second ransom note was postmarked from Brooklyn, NY on the evening of March 4 and did not arrive at Lindbergh Estate until the following morning (Apparently the Post Office was much more efficient delivering mail then than it is now.) So what is the newspaper article referring to? These types of comments to the papers are really hard to match up. As an example, here is a copy of a phone log from that date concerning notes being mailed just from Elizabeth:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 11:04:28 GMT -5
Michael, In Kennedy's book, Crime of the Century, on page 354, the defense attorneys have been struggling to stay together as a team. The Hauptmann defense fund was holding fundraisers and money was coming in. Then Kennedy mentions that Reilly had received a $7,500 retainer from Hearst Publications to defend Hauptmann. I know it was said that Reilly was to be paid $25,000 by Hearst. Did Reilly ever receive any other funds from Hearst beyond the retainer? Was the balance of the $25,000 to be paid to Reilly contingent on the execution of Hauptmann and wouldn't be paid until that time? Kennedy goes on to say that Reilly submitted a bill to Anna Hauptmann for $25,000 dollars. How outrageous!! Here is a link to a newspaper article about the turmoil that was happening with the defense team. Fisher's anger with Reilly is certainly justified. Personally, I think the $7,500 dollar retainer he received from Hearst is more than he was worth as a defense attorney in this case. news.google.com/newspapers?id=B38hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZYsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1516%2C4090040
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2015 22:44:14 GMT -5
In Kennedy's book, Crime of the Century, on page 354, the defense attorneys have been struggling to stay together as a team. The Hauptmann defense fund was holding fundraisers and money was coming in. Then Kennedy mentions that Reilly had received a $7,500 retainer from Hearst Publications to defend Hauptmann. I know it was said that Reilly was to be paid $25,000 by Hearst. Did Reilly ever receive any other funds from Hearst beyond the retainer? Was the balance of the $25,000 to be paid to Reilly contingent on the execution of Hauptmann and wouldn't be paid until that time? Kennedy goes on to say that Reilly submitted a bill to Anna Hauptmann for $25,000 dollars. How outrageous!! Here is a link to a newspaper article about the turmoil that was happening with the defense team. Fisher's anger with Reilly is certainly justified. Personally, I think the $7,500 dollar retainer he received from Hearst is more than he was worth as a defense attorney in this case. The Hearst "retainer" story seems to have it's origins with Gov. Hoffman. He said he was told by several Reporters that a Hearst Reporter was heard bragging about it. However, Rogers St. Johns said that Hearst told her, in essence, it wasn't true. According to Reilly, he had rec'd over $7000 from Anna but had used almost $5000 of his own funds during this time because he knew her funds were low. Reilly sued but the Court dismissed it noting there was testimony that he fraudulently obtained some $5000 for the purposes of Hauptmann's appeal. Reilly's took his complaint against Anna to NY but it was denied there too, and the Defense, by the way, was represented by Charles Oberwager here. Here is something relevant from the Hoffman Collection:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 11:48:21 GMT -5
So I need to be clear on this. Since Rogers St. Johns says that there was no retainer involved, does that mean that Reilly was paid the $25,000 fee in total upfront? After reading that memo you posted where Reilly would not make any comments until he had the $75.00 in hand, it would fit with Reilly wanting to be paid in advance for his representation of Hauptmann.
Who is Charles Oberwager?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2015 15:13:49 GMT -5
So I need to be clear on this. Since Rogers St. Johns says that there was no retainer involved, does that mean that Reilly was paid the $25,000 fee in total upfront? That would mean there was no retainer, and the $25K would be in addition to whatever funds had been given him by the Anna or the Defense fund. I honestly don't know what the truth is. Hoffman was certainly in the position to hear these things from other Reporters so he's not making that up, however I've never seen Lloyd Fisher mention it in any of his material where he blasts Reilly so I lean toward him having not rec'd that sum as a retainer. Who is Charles Oberwager? He sat next to Anna on at least one occasion during the trial as a spectator and was commenting to her about the certain legalities behind the different actions the Lawyers were taking during the course of the day. He was a New York Magistrate at the time. Later, as I mentioned above, he was retained to defend against the Reilly action. From the 1935 May 9th NY Evening Post: Oberwager would later give talks on the case to the various German Associations in support of Hauptmann.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 10:38:09 GMT -5
Michael,
I have been thinking about something this morning and I want to ask you about it. It concerns the two sets of footprints found in the dirt outside of the nursery. When the kidnappers went to leave the the scene with the ladder, two sections were left together. Can you tell by the way the footprints were made whether the ladder was carried by two people or one. Were the two sets of prints of people walking side by side or is there space between the prints which might suggest the ladder being held in two places (forward person and back end person)carrying the ladder to where it was found?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2015 14:11:31 GMT -5
I have been thinking about something this morning and I want to ask you about it. It concerns the two sets of footprints found in the dirt outside of the nursery. When the kidnappers went to leave the the scene with the ladder, two sections were left together. Can you tell by the way the footprints were made whether the ladder was carried by two people or one. Were the two sets of prints of people walking side by side or is there space between the prints which might suggest the ladder being held in two places (forward person and back end person)carrying the ladder to where it was found? I've never seen that question addressed, but I do know they could not determine the weight of the men who made them. From everything I have, the prints were followed, first by Police, then later by Bush. At least one print was casted, and a series of Police evidence photos were made. At first, once Reporters arrived, they were kept out of the yard. At some point Troopers were giving them a "walking tour" and allowing them to take photos. Eventually the yard was yielded to Press up until the point they were asked to leave. From my point of view the Police obtained what they believed was needed but we can certainly look back on it and say they should have done more. That's not to conclude they didn't, however, there's nothing more to be found at the NJSP Archives that I don't already have in my possession. Also, I should add, that the prints followed that night were not made by Reporters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 19:41:09 GMT -5
I thought I would take a chance and ask. I realized it was an unusual question but one I thought was worth checking with you about. I appreciate you taking the time to answer it. Thanks!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 4, 2015 20:53:53 GMT -5
I know I've read and can find it that the footprints weren't investigated until after the ladder was inspected inside the Lindbergh home, and the ladder was brought into the house by Bornmann when he observed people looking at it who he thought were reporters. That would mean who knows where those "reporters" - obviously not police or Bornmann would have recognized that's what they were - went after that? Possibly two of them back to their car on Featherbed Lane. Even if they were police, they could have gone anywhere after the ladder was taken in, and it certainly doesn't sound like (as I've read on here) they were known or controlled in any way by the hierarchy of the crime area outside the house at that early time.
The "footprints from the crime scene" is another issue where some decide the facts depending on what their theory of this crime is.
Though the print they cast didn't match Hauptmann, it's most possible the perpetrator left in a different direction, especially with the fact of the finding of the thumb-guard down the main drive.
The single set of stockinged prints were large enough to match Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2015 21:01:54 GMT -5
I thought I would take a chance and ask. I realized it was an unusual question but one I thought was worth checking with you about. I appreciate you taking the time to answer it. Thanks! Not unusual at all Amy. With all that was being carried away from that house it's something I am sure the Police asked themselves about - most especially since the male prints were all facing away from the house excepting the one at the foot of the ladder. The problem is, as it relates to the footprints, there isn't much about them in the source material. There's more then what Fisher found, of course, but there's things I'd expect would be in writing that isn't presently at the Archives. As an example, the re-enactments were reported in the newspapers, but I've never found a detailed report concerning the event or their findings. I would expect one was written, but perhaps nothing ever was. By the same token, it's not uncommon to find multiple sources that all say something different about any random topic. Nothing is easy when it comes to researching this case! That's why I find this Board and our Members so helpful in sorting it all out.... I know I've read and can find it that the footprints weren't investigated until after the ladder was inspected inside the Lindbergh home, and the ladder was brought into the house by Bornmann when he observed people looking at it who he thought were reporters. That would mean who knows where those "reporters" - obviously not police or Bornmann would have recognized that's what they were - went after that? Possibly two of them back to their car on Featherbed Lane. Even if they were police, they could have gone anywhere after the ladder was taken in, and it certainly doesn't sound like (as I've read on here) they were known or controlled in any way by the hierarchy of the crime area outside the house at that early time. Jack: The Police were out following those prints before any Reporter showed up. Bornmann mentioned in one report that he saw people he did not know prompting him to move the ladder inside. Who they were I do not know. They could have been the Cops who were already guarding the yard. Could have been the first Reporters showing up. Regardless, the Cops were already out following the prints by that time. Whoever says differently is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 16:44:59 GMT -5
Nothing is easy when it comes to researching this case! That's why I find this Board and our Members so helpful in sorting it all out.... So, Michael, I realize I sound like a broken record when it come to Attorney Ed Reilly and his compensation for heading up the defense of Richard Hauptmann. I was looking up something yesterday and in Ahlgren and Monier's book, Crime of the Century, on page 142, they state that Ed Reilly was paid $10,000 by the New York Daily Mirror. For that $10K, Reilly provided this newspaper with the inside story of the defense case as it went forward. Did Hearst own the New York Daily Mirror? Was Reilly actually paid this $10,000 dollars? All these money figures surrounding Reilly's compensation is getting rather confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2015 18:00:17 GMT -5
So, Michael, I realize I sound like a broken record when it come to Attorney Ed Reilly and his compensation for heading up the defense of Richard Hauptmann. I was looking up something yesterday and in Ahlgren and Monier's book, Crime of the Century, on page 142, they state that Ed Reilly was paid $10,000 by the New York Daily Mirror. For that $10K, Reilly provided this newspaper with the inside story of the defense case as it went forward. Did Hearst own the New York Daily Mirror? Was Reilly actually paid this $10,000 dollars? All these money figures surrounding Reilly's compensation is getting rather confusing. Hearst did own the NY Daily Mirror. I think this comes from one of the Hynd Articles or even perhaps one of the Hoffman Liberty series. There was an agreement, however, I don't know exactly when that agreement took place, exactly how much it was for, or the precise terms. For example, might the idea be the money was going to the Defense Fund? I can't remember honestly. I also have some accounts that say certain Reporters had access until being shut out by the Hearst people. The Female Reporter, Jean Adams I think, even moved in with Anna at some point and I believe this all had to do with this agreement. I would have to completely and thoroughly research this again before making any rock solid conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2015 19:54:05 GMT -5
FYI Amy: I was reading some of Lloyd Fisher's material and he said there was some kind of deal between Hearst and Reilly concerning giving them the "scoop" when Hauptmann confessed. He says that when none was forthcoming, they 'gave up' on Reilly and "they turned to me in sweet tones of great sums of money and I told them frankly that Hauptmann had absolutely nothing to say by way of confession, that it was my firm conviction that Hauptmann knew nothing about the crime." He also said Hearst was paying Anna $20 a week granting them sole access to her by way of a contract which she signed believing they would help her husband by publishing friendly stories about him.
So there's all kinds of "stuff" going on as it relates to newspapers and money. My position has always been that I didn't think Reilly's retainer had been paid by Hearst for the reasons I've outlined previously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 8:00:24 GMT -5
FYI Amy: I was reading some of Lloyd Fisher's material and he said there was some kind of deal between Hearst and Reilly concerning giving them the "scoop" when Hauptmann confessed. He says that when none was forthcoming, they 'gave up' on Reilly and " they turned to me in sweet tones of great sums of money and I told them frankly that Hauptmann had absolutely nothing to say by way of confession, that it was my firm conviction that Hauptmann knew nothing about the crime." He also said Hearst was paying Anna $20 a week granting them sole access to her by way of a contract which she signed believing they would help her husband by publishing friendly stories about him. So there's all kinds of "stuff" going on as it relates to newspapers and money. My position has always been that I didn't think Reilly's retainer had been paid by Hearst for the reasons I've outlined previously. I did not know that Fisher was offered money for information. Thank God he was nothing like Reilly!! Fisher believed in his client's innocence and took the ethical high road when dealing with the news media. Reilly was just a greedy, self-serving man. I can understand Anna taking the $20 a week from Hearst. She loved her husband, wanted to be near to him and was hoping for the favorable publicity that would help the public to see her Richard as the man she knew him to be and not the monster portrayed in the newspapers. My understanding was that they never did write Hauptmann friendly articles. Didn't Anna grant an interview to a woman who was not with Hearst? Anna did so because this woman was going to print a story that was favorable to her and Richard. Did this woman reporter ever file that story. Did it ever get published? Since you were reading some of Fisher's material, I was wondering if you encountered anything on the following: In Lloyd's book, TCTND, on page 221 (paperback), he mentions that Fisher actually contacted Clarence Darrow about Hauptmann's case. If you can, could you comment on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2015 19:41:37 GMT -5
My understanding was that they never did write Hauptmann friendly articles. Didn't Anna grant an interview to a woman who was not with Hearst? Anna did so because this woman was going to print a story that was favorable to her and Richard. Did this woman reporter ever file that story. Did it ever get published? There were a lot of unfriendly articles written by Hearst Reporters. And yes, prior to this contract Anna did give interviews to "select" Reporters. Since you were reading some of Fisher's material, I was wondering if you encountered anything on the following: In Lloyd's book, TCTND, on page 221 (paperback), he mentions that Fisher actually contacted Clarence Darrow about Hauptmann's case. If you can, could you comment on this? I have never found anything on Fisher/Darrow. Lloyd's source is unique and is also one that is rock solid: Herr Jr. There's no doubt in my mind that Fisher reached out to him. Darrow and Hoffman certainly communicated too:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 14:59:09 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that telegram sent by Gov. Hoffman to Darrow. I recently found this newspaper article that mentions Darrow sending Gov. Hoffman and the Court of Pardons telegrams urging them to retry Hauptmann because of the doubtful evidence he was convicted on. Hoffman's telegram is his response to Darrow's. Here is a link to that article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=jL9RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=l1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3195%2C1398529
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 15:47:57 GMT -5
Michael,
On the NJSP call log for March 1, 1932, a 11;58 p.m. Sgt. Haussling phoned in the license plate number L 12406. He wanted it checked. He was called back at 12:04 a.m. with the info.
Do you know who this license number traced to, if anyone? I know that Ben Lupica said the car he saw that night had a license plate number that started with an L which would have been a N.J. plate, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2015 21:41:58 GMT -5
Michael, On the NJSP call log for March 1, 1932, a 11;58 p.m. Sgt. Haussling phoned in the license plate number L 12406. He wanted it checked. He was called back at 12:04 a.m. with the info. Do you know who this license number traced to, if anyone? I know that Ben Lupica said the car he saw that night had a license plate number that started with an L which would have been a N.J. plate, I believe. I seem to recall this car belonged to someone from Lawrenceville or Princeton and that it didn't amount to anything. The teletypes at the Archives are probably the hardest items to go through. The type-face is a rough read, and I've found that there's probably 1 in every 100 that's even worth making a copy of. What I would do is if a question arose and the answer amounted to neutralizing it then I would not make a copy. There are thousands upon thousands of these things! Since I've only ever gone through them twice, it's hard for me to say with any degree of certainty about this specific plate. However, I know how I think I and I am absolutely sure if there was something to this (from my point of view), even remotely, I would have copies in my files. Since I do not then I am satisfied this didn't amount to anything worthwhile. Now the issue becomes whether or not what I think is important enough for another Researcher to skip over this question.... To this I say " no." Never allow someone else to make that call. If it's something you (or anyone else) feels should be investigated then absolutely do it. I've missed things and/or made mistakes in my research then corrected my own mistakes myself. So looking at it from this perspective someone else could certainly see things differently, find something I missed, or make a connection I couldn't. L = Mercer County
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 24, 2015 23:04:53 GMT -5
So, Michael, I realize I sound like a broken record when it come to Attorney Ed Reilly and his compensation for heading up the defense of Richard Hauptmann. I was looking up something yesterday and in Ahlgren and Monier's book, Crime of the Century, on page 142, they state that Ed Reilly was paid $10,000 by the New York Daily Mirror. For that $10K, Reilly provided this newspaper with the inside story of the defense case as it went forward. Did Hearst own the New York Daily Mirror? Was Reilly actually paid this $10,000 dollars? All these money figures surrounding Reilly's compensation is getting rather confusing. Hearst did own the NY Daily Mirror. I think this comes from one of the Hynd Articles or even perhaps one of the Hoffman Liberty series. There was an agreement, however, I don't know exactly when that agreement took place, exactly how much it was for, or the precise terms. For example, might the idea be the money was going to the Defense Fund? I can't remember honestly. I also have some accounts that say certain Reporters had access until being shut out by the Hearst people. The Female Reporter, Jean Adams I think, even moved in with Anna at some point and I believe this all had to do with this agreement. I would have to completely and thoroughly research this again before making any rock solid conclusions. The rumours about Reilly being paid by Hearst were circulating as the trial was going on. Robert Forsythe makes reference to this in his book, Redder than a Rose, which was published in 1935.
Later when Reilly's wife, Fleurette, was divorcing him, she made the allegation that he was paid $10,000 by Hearst. Reilly swore an affidavit in reply which stated: "The Hauptmann's still owe deponent $17,000.00 which deponent knows will never be paid him. The defendant well knows that deponent never received one dollar from the Hearst Enterprises or any one else, or one dollar from any moving picture company or anyone connected with the exploitation of that trial..."
Whether one can believe Reilly or not is another matter....
By the way, maybe it is just me, but I found the Honeycomb to be a painful read - it is worse than Jafsie Tells All! Adela Rogers St. John seems to have been a terrible reporter, concluding that Hauptmann was guilty simply by looking at him. The only part I liked about the book was the bits where Runyon tells her off, such as telling her "I don't see any factual basis for this" with respect to one of her articles.
|
|