Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 14:59:35 GMT -5
To All:
I see that the matter of Hochmuth's testimony is brought up on this thread. I can't help but wonder why on earth the Defense was not suspicious about Hochmuth's very poor vision and did not bring up the issue on cross examination. I know they never saw the medical report on Hochmuth until after the trial, but couldn't they have seen Hochmuth in person at the trial having difficulty in finding himself around as he was walking around the courtroom and to the witness stand? Add that to his age, and it should have triggered a logical reaction from the defense, especially in the situation here where Hochmuth was testifying only to what he purportedly saw and his testimony was so critical to the prosecution's case. It was like Michael said in his post above yours. The prosecution was not in the least helpful with anything. What little they did manage to get was like pulling nails out of wood with your teeth. They were learning things on the fly and then mostly what the prosecution was revealing during the trial or what was being revealed in newspapers. How do you formulate an effective defense this way? Reilly did bring up Hochmuth's vision during the cross-examination. Here is how that went: Q (Reilly) - Are you near-sighted or far-sighted? A (Hochmuth) - My eyes are all right.
Q (Reilly) - I didn't ask that, mister. You are wearing glasses.
Mr. Wilentz: He has answered it. He asked if he was near or far-sighted.
The Court: He says his eyes are all right.
Q (Reilly) - Why do you wear the glasses, to see better? A (Hochmuth) - At a distance, yes. For reading, I read without glasses.I really wish Reily would have pushed the envelope harder with this line of questioning. Hochmuth is admitting he has distance vision issues. Maybe Reilly should have asked things like how long has he been wearing the glasses? Was he wearing them in 1932? Stuff like that. But he doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 16:01:16 GMT -5
So, Michael, I have been reading Judge Trenchard's charge to the jury. Off the top of my head, I have to say that, whether one thinks he intended to or not, Trenchard does a lot of leading with how the jurors might draw inferences or conclusions about the testimony and evidence in this case. Its like he is sharing how he sees it and, in a way, encourages these jurors to draw inferences and conclusions that are consistent with the state's case. He goes over each point of the state's case in this mannner. He offers no such "assistance" to the defense case, however.
On page 327 of Cahill's book, he mentions that in 1935 it was permissable for a judge to give the jury the benefit of his individual views of the evidence. This is ok as long as he isn't controlling the jurors with binding instructions when sharing his views. So, I guess what sounds like a biased, prejudical charge, at times, actually is not??
I also wanted to mention what Mark Falzini said in his book, Their Fifteen Minutes, page 137. He talks about what Lindbergh thought about Judge Trenchard's charge to the jury. Mark quotes Lindbergh as saying, "Trenchard's charge read more impartially than it sounded. 'For instance' he later told Harold Nicolson, 'he kept on saying to the jury, in going over some of Hauptmann's evidence, "Do you believe that?" Now that sounds all right in print. But what he actually said was, "Do you believe that?"'" I bolded those two words to reflect the voice change that Lindbergh was conveying about how Trenchard spoke that phrase.
Lindbergh, no doubt, is referring to the tone Judge Trenchard used when saying that phrase to the jury. What was Trenchard really trying to convey to that jury about any of the evidence or testimony he attached those words to?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2015 20:35:14 GMT -5
For me, it's warped logic to say that because these points were appealed, and lost, that nothing about any of this was incorrect. The Appeals Court, like the Defense, (and presumably like Judge Trenchard) were in the dark about the true nature of events. If at any point the truth was known I am quite sure things would have been different on so many levels. Removing truth from the equation never legitimizes anything - ever. There's nothing "fair" about a blind guy testifying about seeing someone specific. The real issue here is those in specific "camps" never want to concede errors or mistakes that undermine their narrative. And so whatever appears to help is shouted from the rooftops, and what hurts is either left on the cutting room floor or shrugged off using an irrational argument of some sort or another. If the Appeals Court saw Peacock's pretrial preparation Statement from Hochmuth, would they have felt the same way? And if the Defense had seen it might they have made some use of it too? Of course. It only "works" if the facts remain hidden. Exactly how does hiding the facts make something right? Q[Peacock]: Would you say Hauptmann was the man? A[Hochmuth]: I can't say that. I can't say that. The face that looked and stopped he looked up at me it was red face the features were the same he looked as if he had seen a ghost- he stopped and looked at me for about fifteen seconds.
Q: What did he do then? A: I made a step towards the car and he started again.
Q: You have seen Hauptmann at the jail? A: I could not say exactly.
Q: Have you seen him any other place besides the jail? A: No, I can't say. I have been thinking it over if I had seen him.
Q: You will be asked the question "Was Hauptmann the man" and you will have to answer yes or no. A: I can't say it was and I can't say it was not.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 1, 2015 7:05:18 GMT -5
As far as the jury was concerned did the defense ever provide a possible alternative to BRH? They did imply an "inside job" but no ladder climber, and IJ theory really just went against CAL which of course was off the table.
I know BRH is supposed innocent until proven guilty, but it didn't work in this situation. I think prosecution felt he'd confess his part and name accomplices if faced down to the wire with electrocution. In reality no one would ever confess to any part of TLC and as unlikely as it seems, what we have is Richard committing the kidnapping and extortion as a loner. I know there's plenty of implication of others having to be involved but no evidence unless there are still facts about the crime which we are unaware of. There are parts of the crime which are as yet classified, but there is also an implication that CAL was a spy instead of being a good American Nazi, so that could be part of the confidentiality.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 1, 2015 7:36:58 GMT -5
Addendum: It seems a lot of CAL's unusual reactions to the kidnapping may have been due to the notion (by him) that the most popular man in the world would also be the most intelligent. For him to be burned by a hack kidnapper was probably beyond his belief system and he was basically in shock - perhaps for quite some time after the crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 9:01:36 GMT -5
So where in this pretrial statement does Hochmuth change his tune and say he will identify Hauptmann in court, because that is what he did. Where is that in this pretrial statement? Where does "I can't say it" become I will say it?
I understand that the defense team and the Court are in the dark about investigative findings and trial prep for this case. So doesn't this mean that a lot of police and prosecution officials knew the truth was being covered up but went along with this course of action, even lying to make sure it all "worked"? If there is all this kind of evidence in the NJSP files, why wasn't Robert Bryan, who represented Anna Hauptmann in the 1980's, able to take things like Hochmuth's pretrial statement and prove that Hochmuth was "persuaded" to identify Hauptmann even though he really could not?
I think that Fisher, Pope, and Rosecrans would have wanted to use it for sure. My problem is with Ed Reilly. Do you, Michael, think that Reilly wanted to prove that Hauptmann was innocent of the murder and extortion? If so, why then does he concede the identity of the body found in the Mount Rose woods? Why does he "forget" to secure the plaster foot print that he argued for in court? And why does Reilly during his cross examination of Charles Lindbergh end up doing this:
Trial Transcript Pages 201 and 202
Mr. Wilentz: As I understand it, we want the Colonel's beliefs then and now as to who he thought had the child. Will you please answer that, Colonel?
The Witness (Lindbergh) - Pardon me, I was asking for the question to be reread.
Mr. Wilentz: As I understand it, it is modified now so that you give your belief then and now, what you believed then and what you believe now.
Mr. Reilly: That was the suggestion of his learned Honor.
The Court: Yes.
Q (Reilly) - Colonel, I will ask you, as suggested by the Court, and I assume that your answer will be that the defendant, you believe now, is guilty of the kidnapping; is that correct?
The Witness (Lindbergh) to the Court: Shall I answer?
The Court: Yes.
A (Lindbergh) - I do.
How does a defending attorney end up asking the father of the victim if he believes that his client is guilty? How was he helping to prove the innocence of his client by doing this? It is things of this nature that make me question Reilly's commitment to his client.
I think Jack gets it right in his post when he says, "BRH is supposed innocent until proven guilty, but it didn't work in this situation."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2015 18:29:12 GMT -5
]So where in this pretrial statement does Hochmuth change his tune and say he will identify Hauptmann in court, because that is what he did. Where is that in this pretrial statement? Where does "I can't say it" become I will say it? I understand that the defense team and the Court are in the dark about investigative findings and trial prep for this case. So doesn't this mean that a lot of police and prosecution officials knew the truth was being covered up but went along with this course of action, even lying to make sure it all "worked"? If there is all this kind of evidence in the NJSP files, why wasn't Robert Bryan, who represented Anna Hauptmann in the 1980's, able to take things like Hochmuth's pretrial statement and prove that Hochmuth was "persuaded" to identify Hauptmann even though he really could not? Hochmuth doesn't change his tune in the trial preparation statement. Fact is, this document wasn't introduced to the Archives until 1999 so neither Hoffman nor Bryan had access to it during their actions/involvement. Leon Ho-age questioned Hochmuth in 1937. This is when the infamous event occurred where Hochmuth was claiming his eye were good and they asked him to identify the vase of flowers sitting on top of the radio less then 10 feet away him and he couldn't see what it was.... Q: Then is when it was getting dark? A: Yes, it was getting dark in Prison, don't you see. Then Genz of the State police took me out again and I says I can't identify that man there. I want to see him just the way I saw him before. I didn't tell them I saw him on the bridge. Then I said "it looks bad because he is German and I am German" and the next morning they went after me again.
Q: You went to see him twice? A: Yes. And I says "Give me a seat so I can see him well." That was in the courtroom and I didn't know how the courtroom was, so they put me down and then I looked it all over for a while and then I saw him. I caught his eye and I'm sure he saw me and he looked just like the man I saw before. I saw him in the morning and again in the afternoon.
Q: When did you decide that he was the same man? A: In the morning and again in the afternoon.
Q: In the morning were you sure? A: In the morning I couldn't see exactly because the light was peculiar there. Well, now, I says, that's him. I saw his face flushing just as red as it did the time he looked out of the car. Twice.
Q: What do you mean twice? A: Twice in Court. He passed by me once and then I saw him sitting there. He looked afraid of me. I caught his eye several times during the time he was sitting there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 10:52:18 GMT -5
Hochmuth doesn't change his tune in the trial preparation statement. Fact is, this document wasn't introduced to the Archives until 1999 so neither Hoffman nor Bryan had access to it during their actions/involvement. Leon Ho-age questioned Hochmuth in 1937. This is when the infamous event occurred where Hochmuth was claiming his eye were good and they asked him to identify the vase of flowers sitting on top of the radio less then 10 feet away him and he couldn't see what it was.... Q: Then is when it was getting dark? A: Yes, it was getting dark in Prison, don't you see. Then Genz of the State police took me out again and I says I can't identify that man there. I want to see him just the way I saw him before. I didn't tell them I saw him on the bridge. Then I said "it looks bad because he is German and I am German" and the next morning they went after me again.
Q: You went to see him twice? A: Yes. And I says "Give me a seat so I can see him well." That was in the courtroom and I didn't know how the courtroom was, so they put me down and then I looked it all over for a while and then I saw him. I caught his eye and I'm sure he saw me and he looked just like the man I saw before. I saw him in the morning and again in the afternoon.
Q: When did you decide that he was the same man? A: In the morning and again in the afternoon.
Q: In the morning were you sure? A: In the morning I couldn't see exactly because the light was peculiar there. Well, now, I says, that's him. I saw his face flushing just as red as it did the time he looked out of the car. Twice.
Q: What do you mean twice? A: Twice in Court. He passed by me once and then I saw him sitting there. He looked afraid of me. I caught his eye several times during the time he was sitting there. So Hochmuth's pretrial statement doesn't make it to the NJSP files until 1999? It wasn't available for Gov. Hoffman and not for Roberty Bryan either. Well, someone had it and then managed to finally put it back into the files. This is just incredible. What date was that the pretrial prep statement of Hochmuth taken on? The questioning of Hochmuth by Ho-age was the way I would have liked Reilly to have questioned Hochmuth. Reilly had the opportunity to further show Hochmuth's bad vision when he questioned him about his jailhouse visit to view Hauptmann: Trial Transcript - Pages 461-462Cross examination of Hochmuth by Edward Reilly: Q (Reilly) - Thats all -- pardon me, it isn't all. Were you taken into the jail some time ago by a State trooper? A (Hochmuth) - Yes.
Q (Reilly) - When? A (Hochmuth) - Oh it was several days ago.
Q (Reilly) - You saw the defendant, Hauptmann, there didn't you? A (Hochmuth)- I saw a figure in there, but I couldn't see him.
Q (Reilly) - Didn't they have you in there thirty minutes? A (Hochmuth) - Maybe so.
Q (Reilly) - What? A (Hochmuth) - Yes.
Q (Reilly) - There was nobody there but the defendant, was there? A (Hochmuth) - Thats it and two troopers.Instead of jumping on Hochmuth's inability to see the defendant by asking questions about why he couldn't, Reilly takes this line of questioning into what the troopers were wearing and has Hochmuth describing their clothing!! Nothing that would help his defendant in any way. Nothing that would shed light onto Hochmuth's poor vision, especially at a distance, which would have been important for the jurors to hear, since distance vision was involved with seeing that car and the person in it, almost go into the ditch on March 1, 1932. Reilly's goal should have been to create reasonable doubt about Hochmuth and his ability to see properly. Reilly, clearly, drops the ball here. As Ho-age brings out, for Hochmuth, it was too dark for him to see the defendant clearly. This very well could have been a combination of his distance issues and the cataracts he had. Reilly may not have known about the cataracts but he realized Hochmuth had vision issues and should have tried harder to capitalize on that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2015 11:43:39 GMT -5
So Hochmuth's pretrial statement doesn't make it to the NJSP files until 1999? It wasn't available for Gov. Hoffman and not for Roberty Bryan either. Well, someone had it and then managed to finally put it back into the files. This is just incredible. What date was that the pretrial prep statement of Hochmuth taken on? Sometime in '99 a family member (or someone close to the family) who was in possession of these documents donated copies to the Archives. Since they do not exist anywhere else in any other collection, it's my opinion they had only been kept and retained by Peacock so frankly we're lucky by two strokes - one that he kept them and two that someone who eventually gained possession decided to share them. If you think about it the same thing happened with Governor Hoffman's material, and it's why I always hesitate to draw rock solid conclusions concerning certain things, or at least give a nod to something possibly "unknown" for just this reason. (And besides that - new stuff continues to fall into my lap each and every time I happen to think I know all there is to know!!) The preparation statement was taken on January 6, 1935.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 9:27:31 GMT -5
Sometime in '99 a family member (or someone close to the family) who was in possession of these documents donated copies to the Archives. Since they do not exist anywhere else in any other collection, it's my opinion they had only been kept and retained by Peacock so frankly we're lucky by two strokes - one that he kept them and two that someone who eventually gained possession decided to share them. If you think about it the same thing happened with Governor Hoffman's material, and it's why I always hesitate to draw rock solid conclusions concerning certain things, or at least give a nod to something possibly "unknown" for just this reason. (And besides that - new stuff continues to fall into my lap each and every time I happen to think I know all there is to know!!) The preparation statement was taken on January 6, 1935. So it came to the archives privately. Gee, that reminds me of how Hauptmann's letter to his Mother that was never mailed became known. It had been held privately by Kimberling until his death and then passed to the archives. I understand your hesitancy in drawing firm conclusions about things in this case. It makes me wonder what else might be out there, undiscovered or not being disclosed for whatever reasons. Will it ever be possible to close the book on this case?? So the prep statement was done January of 1935. Is the prosecution prepping a witness who has not yet identified the suspect? When did Hochmuth actually make a positive physical identification as the man he saw on March 1, 1932 in Hopewell New Jersey? Gardner's book, on page 239, says Hochmuth was taken to view Hauptmann in December of 1934. Would this be the jail house visit where Hockmuth said he could not see the suspect well enough to make an identification?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 8:29:03 GMT -5
Well, Jack, Rosie was the second juror selected by the lawyers. Michael mentioned in an earlier post she only received a "fair" rating when the prosecutors had the potential jurors investigated. I wondered why so I did some reading. Mark Falzini's book "There Fifteen Minutes" has a chapter on the jurors that heard the case. On page 143 of his book he talks about Rosie. He states that the reason she was rated as a fair type juror was because Rosie had a questionable reputation!! The police uncovered that Rosie indulged in "gossiping". So now you know the truth about Rosie Pill! LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 8:38:34 GMT -5
Mr. Charles Synder was chosen as juror #4. Mark Falzini's book says that Mr. Synder was considered a "prosperous farmer" from Clinton, New Jersey. Mr. Synder had served as a juror in the past, serving on three different murder trials. I found an interesting story about Charles Snyder. It seems he (and other jurors) received letters after the trial was over, some congratulatory and others not at all. Mr. Snyder kept his letters and they were found by his family after his death. Here is an article about Charles Snyder and some of the letters he received. blog.nj.com/lindbergh/2008/03/lindbergh_juror_no_4_kept_lett.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 8:54:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2015 13:41:20 GMT -5
Michael, I was wondering if you could comment on the story about Mary Belle Spencer, a Chicago Lawyer who wrote a phamplet of a fictional account of a hoax kidnapping of an aviator child. A copy of this phamplet somehow made it into the hands of each person (150) named on that potential jury panel in the Hauptmann Trial. This situation was mentioned in both of Fisher's books, and when I first started researching the case it's how I knew about it happening. And so before I even had the Jury Selection Transcripts I was searching for this pamphlet at the Archives eventually finding it in an envelope in Gov. Hoffman's correspondence collection. As you can see by the scans below, it's original title was changed. In changing it, they simply added a strip of paper with the new name and taped it over the old. But as far as "who" sent this to the jury that was never determined. "Why" they sent it is a matter of speculation but it appears they were either searching for publicity (for this document), or actually attempting to influence the Jury against the State. The Defense took up the position that it harmed them as well, but after reading it myself I can't see how.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 10:09:43 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for showing what this pamphlet looked like. We will never know why an attorney would create such a story which is based on characters in the Lindbergh case. Spencer claimed it was for her own amusement and was never meant to be circulated. I believe she blamed the news media for it finding its way to the jury panel. If the sender had thought it would influence any potential jurors, it obviously did not have an affect on the final 12 who decided the fate of Hauptmann. Appreciate your comments!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 10, 2015 16:05:35 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for showing what this pamphlet looked like. We will never know why an attorney would create such a story which is based on characters in the Lindbergh case. Spencer claimed it was for her own amusement and was never meant to be circulated. I believe she blamed the news media for it finding its way to the jury panel. If the sender had thought it would influence any potential jurors, it obviously did not have an affect on the final 12 who decided the fate of Hauptmann. Appreciate your comments! There were other stories written along the same lines that I have discovered over the years. They change the names, I guess, to ward off any legal actions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2015 9:23:11 GMT -5
Reilly may not have known about the cataracts but he realized Hochmuth had vision issues and should have tried harder to capitalize on that. While going through some material last night I found something insightful about Reilly's perspective concerning Hoffman's Liberty Artlicles:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 12:20:14 GMT -5
Good for Hoffman pointing out the poor job Reilly did as a defense attorney in the Hauptmann case. He was not a strong advocate for his client. I realize it was an uphill battle because the defense did not have the money to mount an aggressive investigation and they received no assistance from the prosecution when they asked for things. Still, that does not excuse his performance in the court room when presented with opportunities to help his client during cross examination and then fails to do so. I have not yet read the Hoffman series of Liberty articles but definitely plan to.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 11, 2015 17:43:10 GMT -5
Thanks, amy35, for posting your link to the article about Charles Snyder. One thing that sounds strange is that the Hauptmann case jurors held periodic parties with their families to celebrate their jury work of the past, and that these parties continued for many years after the trial. Can't see anything illegal in doing that, but is handing down a death penalty, even if they considered it justified, reason for perpetual partying?
But even more troubling and unprofessional is the revelation that prosecutors Wilentz and Houck sent out congratulatory messages to the jurors for arriving at the guilty verdict. Seems rather crass. Maybe the prosecutors were thanking the jurors for advancing their subsequent careers. In the case of Wilentz, he used his name recognition from the Lindbergh case to establish a huge law firm bearing his name, a firm which I believe is still going strong today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 8:06:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:19:39 GMT -5
I am posting this video of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. It is good quality and covers most of the main points. You get to see good images of the trial and witnesses such as Whited, Hochmuth and others. It does end abruptly so I am going to search to see if there is a part 2 somewhere. The other thing that bothered me was the narrator calling Charlie "Little It". Otherwise it is a good video. www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xcta1_1-the-lindbergh-baby-kidnap_shortfilms
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 12, 2015 19:31:10 GMT -5
Did you notice how on Michael's image of the cover of that story, the name "Lindbergh" was terribly misspelled as "LIMBERG"? Any literate person who received an item like that should have been questioning the literacy of the author. (Or was the cover deliberately tampered with so as to cast doubt on the writer's legitimacy and credibility?)
BTW, I'm somewhat surprised that Wilentz and his fellow prosecutors didn't consider going after Ms. Spencer, the author of the story, on jury tampering charges. Perhaps they thought about that and waited until after the trial was completed, and decided that they won the case anyway, so they would be good sports on that and forgot about Ms. Spencer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 20:01:30 GMT -5
Did you notice how on Michael's image of the cover of that story, the name "Lindbergh" was terribly misspelled as "LIMBERG"? Any literate person who received an item like that should have been questioning the literacy of the author. (Or was the cover deliberately tampered with so as to cast doubt on the writer's legitimacy and credibility?)
BTW, I'm somewhat surprised that Wilentz and his fellow prosecutors didn't consider going after Ms. Spencer, the author of the story, on jury tampering charges. Perhaps they thought about that and waited until after the trial was completed, and decided that they won the case anyway, so they would be good sports on that and forgot about Ms. Spencer.
According to Ms. Spencer, she claimed she wasn't responsible for it ending up in the hands of the jury. She had not written it with that intention. This lady was a lawyer so she knew how to write something based on a current event but written as fiction. Potential jurors were asked about it and it didn't have an impact so I guess it didn't matter after all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 20:09:26 GMT -5
I am going to post a picture I found about a jury outing. On Saturday, February 2, 1935, to help the jurors relax and get out of the hotel, a bus ride was arranged for them. They were taken on a ride around the countryside. This ride took the jury out of Hunterdon County. Being a seated jury, the question arose about whether this jury was still qualified to continue with the trial because they left Hunterdon County. I don't know if the defense ever knew about this trip and whether they could have challenged this excursion in court. Here is the link to the picture. Scroll down to read the caption that was used with the picture: www.ebay.com/itm/1935-Richard-Hauptmann-Jury-on-Bus-Warren-Hunterdon-Co-Line-NJ-Press-Photo-/350932220147?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51b530b8f3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2015 20:45:25 GMT -5
I have been reading the New Jersey Law statues and came across something that really concerns me about the way Dr. Mitchell and Coroner Swayze conducted themselves concerning the corpse that was found. According to New Jersey Law at the time of the kidnapping Statue 1018 regulating County Physicians states the following: 2. That it shall be the duty of said county physician, in all cases of death in prison, and all violent, sudden or casual deaths within his county, to take a view of the body, and make all proper inquiry respecting the cause and manner of the death, for the purpose of ascertaining whether an inquest should be held; if, upon such view and inquiry said physician shall be of an opinion that there is cause to suspect that the person whose body he has been called to view, came to his or her death by murder, or manslaughter, or by the contrivance, aiding, procurring or other misconduct of any person or persons, then it shall be his duty to call upon one of the coroners of the county, or if such coroner cannot be had, upon a justice of the peace of said county, and request him, in writing, to issue the precept for the summoning of a jury of inquistion, to consist of not more than fifteen nor less than nine, and to hold an inquest and make return of the same according to law, and any post mortem examination or other medical service required upon said inquest shall be performed bt said county physician. Dr. Mitchell was of the opinion that the corpse he viewed and examined had been the victim of a murder. As the law is written above, it was his duty to have the coroner arrange for an inquest jury to review the findings on the corpse. This is the law! So, how come this never happened? I have no doubt that both Mitchell and Swayze knew the law in regards to murder victims. Yet they don't do this. The law is not followed and the child's body is taken the next day and cremated. How come when Mitchell was on the stand, the defense did not bring up this lack of compliance with state law? Could this have been used by the defense to ask for a mistrial? How come things like this get passed over when it comes to the Lindbergh case?
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Nov 27, 2015 1:04:48 GMT -5
I wondered if anyone can help me with a question. In the Hallam American Bar Association report, he quotes an anonymous juror as stating that each of the jurors had given a separate published interview as part of a series. This seems similar to newspaper reports that the jury was writing a book together with each juror to do one chapter. I have seen various interviews with several of the jurors, but have not seen consecutive interviews with all of the jurors in one newspaper. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks!
BTW, fascinating hint re the jury, Michael - I can't wait to read your findings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 27, 2015 17:42:31 GMT -5
I wondered if anyone can help me with a question. In the Hallam American Bar Association report, he quotes an anonymous juror as stating that each of the jurors had given a separate published interview as part of a series. This seems similar to newspaper reports that the jury was writing a book together with each juror to do one chapter. I have seen various interviews with several of the jurors, but have not seen consecutive interviews with all of the jurors in one newspaper. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks! BTW, fascinating hint re the jury, Michael - I can't wait to read your findings. " Why Hauptmann Was Found Guilty - Told By Jurors" New York Evening Journal I believe the first article starts with Charles Walton on June 24, 1935.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Nov 27, 2015 19:41:28 GMT -5
Thanks Michael! Much appreciated!
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 19, 2019 18:24:19 GMT -5
Here's what Trenchard had to say about this in his charge to the Jury ( p 4511) This testimony, if true, is highly significant. Do you think that there is any reason, upon the whole, to doubt the truth of the old man's testimony? May he not have well and easily remembered the circumstance, in view of the fact that that very night the child was carried away? Imagine you're in Court facing this charge when someone blatantly lies about seeing you then the Judge backs him up in this way? Is there any reason to doubt him? There's so many I've lost count. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/23lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/130I so have to read Trenchard's charge to the jury in its entirety. He is clearly trying to eliminate reasonable doubt about Hochmuth' testimony, and bias the jury in favor of it as completely truthful. This is so improper!!! Judges are not supposed to do that! The Court of Errors and Appeals claiming that the defense's argument about the ladder being attached to Hauptmann is "without substance." is shameful. Hochmuth never identified the kidnap ladder as the ladder that was in the car he saw. In fact, he never identified the car he saw as Hauptmann's car. Hochmuth testified he saw a "dirty green car." Hauptmann's car was dark blue. Hochmuth testified that the man he saw had a "red face" and "glaring eyes". That is all he could say about the man. That is clearly not a worthy description. How does that identify Hauptmann as the man driving the dirty green car? I think there is plenty of substance there. Certainly for the jurors to have reasonable doubt about Hochmuth's identification of Hauptmann. It should have been more than enough for the Court of Errors and Appeals also. Defrauding America by Rodney Stich explained that judges can be paid off to rule favorably on particularly cases and that cases can be fixed by paying judges, prosecutors, police and others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 8:24:57 GMT -5
Defrauding America by Rodney Stich explained that judges can be paid off to rule favorably on particularly cases and that cases can be fixed by paying judges, prosecutors, police and others. I have not read this book you mention but I do realize that political favors did exist in the judicial system as well as witness tampering and juror bribing. Are you suggesting that Judge Trenchard had been paid and so made a jury charge that favored the prosecution side of the case and cast doubt on the defense presentation of the case when he (Trenchard) would say "Do you believe that?" By reading Mark Falzini's excellent book, "Their Fifteen Minutes", Chapter 20 on page 136, you learn that Judge Trenchard was politically active but Trenchard was also regarded as "a jurist of the highest character. He had been tireless in denouncing the scandalous misconduct of the Atlantic (County) officials, and charged grand jury after grand jury to bring guilty men to the bar of justice." Trenchard does not sound like a man who would be guilty of conduct he obviously was against and had worked to prosecute. In my opinion it was Wilentz, who sought a murder charge he could not prove and then did whatever he needed to do to get a conviction that carried a death sentence.
|
|