|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2019 9:03:57 GMT -5
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. So many examples of this... One that comes to mind was using Dr. Mitchell's Report of "Unknown" Child. Why didn't he use the report that he wrote after the child was identified? Because it would have harmed the State's theory which was necessary for that conviction. It's why most people aren't even aware of it and why I made sure to write about it in V1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 9:47:00 GMT -5
So many examples of this... One that comes to mind was using Dr. Mitchell's Report of "Unknown" Child. Why didn't he use the report that he wrote after the child was identified? Because it would have harmed the State's theory which was necessary for that conviction. It's why most people aren't even aware of it and why I made sure to write about it in V1. Ok, Michael, so in V1, Chapter 12, Page 279, you have Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report printed out. It is the one labeled, Report on Unknown Baby. I have not yet seen an autopsy report that identifies the corpse as Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. So you are saying that Mitchell wrote a second report stating the corpse was Charles Jr.? Mitchell was all over the place when it came to discussing his autopsy findings. Reminds me of Condon who was always adding or changing things whenever he discussed events of this case!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2019 9:55:49 GMT -5
Ok, Michael, so in V1, Chapter 12, Page 279, you have Dr. Mitchell's autopsy report printed out. It is the one labeled, Report on Unknown Baby. I have not yet seen an autopsy report that identifies the corpse as Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. So you are saying that Mitchell wrote a second report stating the corpse was Charles Jr.? Yes. Pages 320-324. That is the 2nd report. It was a BIG deal back then. Little did they know they'd have to deep-six it for the trial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 10:16:10 GMT -5
Yes. Pages 320-324. That is the 2nd report. It was a BIG deal back then. Little did they know they'd have to deep-six it for the trial. I can't believe I didn't mark this page for reference when I went through this chapter! I marked the photo page! I can clearly see why this report was deep-sixed as you say. It includes the cause of death as possibly being from a gun shot wound. That's why there was a search made later for a possible bullet still being in the Mount Rose woods grave area. You have done such an amazing job with your books. You don't miss a thing!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 12, 2020 10:48:59 GMT -5
Question: In selection of the Hauptmann jury, were any potential jurors rejected by either the prosecution or defense on the basis of the voir dire questions and answers? If so, would anyone know the specifics as to why that (those) individual(s) were NOT seated?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2020 18:31:56 GMT -5
Is there something specific you are looking for? As an example, the very first drawn from the panel was Lillian Johnson. Hauck challenged her for cause because she initially said she was against the death penalty. Trenchers quizzed her and based on her answers overruled the challenge so Hauck used a peremptory challenge and she was excused.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2020 20:06:39 GMT -5
There’s many peremptory challenges so I will list what I think might be of interest so far (I am halfway through):
Linden Swackhamer was excused by Trenchard because this man did not know how old he was.
Mary Williams was challenged for cause by Fisher because she formed an opinion that she did not think could be changed.
Frances Opdyke was challenged for cause by Hauck because Anna Hauptmann was staying with her.
Katherine Moore was challenged for cause by Hauck because she was against capital punishment.
Russell Stockton was challenged for cause by Fisher because he formed an opinion that could not be changed.
Archibald Gulick was challenged for cause by Fisher because he believed Hauptmann needed to prove his innocence.
|
|