|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2012 5:37:37 GMT -5
I recall the key was on the side by the Front Door.
Lloyd brought out the new fact in his book that a Cast of the Hopewell print did exist. Yet, this fact was not only hidden away from the Defense but from history until he did make it known.
The St. Raymond's print came to their attention from the Newspapers and not the Prosecution. As a result, it was brought out in Court and the cast was ordered to be delivered to the Defense. Unfortunately, the Trial was over before it arrived.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 11, 2012 6:25:57 GMT -5
in the fbi files they said the print at st. raymonds was inconclusive, asfar as the other one mud spreads out
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 11, 2012 11:51:35 GMT -5
Hi RMC, Good to see you back. Well, clearly the foot print didn't match BRH. Wonder if it was too big or too small? If too small--bingo! So much was withheld from the defense. Don't know what the defense would have done with it anyway. I have doubts that Reilly was hired to actually defend BRH.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 11, 2012 17:37:08 GMT -5
clearly? i dont think so. teilly had his shot of obtaining it, but like the fbi said in was not a great cast
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2012 18:45:27 GMT -5
Steve,
The FBI wrote multiple reports, memos, and letters concerning this cast. In one they say basically what you are alluding to, but in others they do not. In fact, they are specific about it not fitting Hauptmann's shoe. Of course you can pick whatever one you'd rather were true, but one should gather ALL reports from ALL sources then let the chips fall where they may.
I can tell you I have an exact outline of one of those prints (I am still trying to determine which one - St. Raymond's or Highfields) and I have it because the NJSP had it. It's exact. So if it fit Hauptmann I am quite sure they would have used it - don't you?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 11, 2012 19:45:18 GMT -5
i know reilly wanted them, i have a newspaper article where sisk was assigned to hand them over. i dont know much of what happened. do you think reilly decided not to use them?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2012 16:03:03 GMT -5
Who knows? I think he would have but its hard to say when dealing with someone afflicted with VD, and under the influence and/or hung over.
|
|