|
Post by feathers on Oct 18, 2015 23:03:19 GMT -5
In many books, I seen references to Hauptmann saying some variation of "Where are you getting these witnesses? They are killing me!" Sometimes the remark is reported as being in private; sometimes muttered in court. Sometimes it is directed at Reilly; sometimes to Fisher about Reilly. I don't know if there is an authentic source for this quote - my guess it would be somewhere in Lloyd Fisher's writings if it was accurate.
But what I am wondering is this (and I apologize if this has already been discussed). The suggestion behind the remark appears to be that Reilly hired or otherwise acquired witnesses willing to perjure themselves for fame or money. I know that lots of Hauptmann's witnesses had credibility problems - having mental treatment; having criminal records; etc. I believe I have even seen the accusation that Reilly gathered such witnesses deliberately.
It is undoubtedly true that some early 20th century famous NYC lawyers would hire witnesses to provide perjured evidence. But is that what Reilly did here?
If so, who were they?
Presumably not Hauptmann's own friends and family - if they perjured themselves it was for a different motive than gain.
Is it the character witnesses about Millard Whited?
The alibi witnesses for the night of the kidnapping, ie those around Fredricksen's Bakery? I for one like the alibi stories about the dog and the witness who remembered Hauptmann because he made fun of him.
The expert witnesses?
What do people think?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 19, 2015 1:45:19 GMT -5
It always seems to me like Hauptmann got a pretty bad deal for a number of reasons which led to a very unfair verdict. Among these was the fact the witnesses on the prosecution were dishonest, confused, untruthful and in some cases downright liars. Osborn saying Hauptmann probably didn't write the letters, only to change his mind once he realized the money was found in Hauptmann's possession is a great example of someone who was dishonest. Whited is someone who lied. So did Lindbergh for that matter.
On Hauptmann's defense side his witnesses were wishy washy at best. Nobody seemed strongly opinionated and helping him was a pretty unpopular thing to do. Even those who truly did and believed him innocent were either bullied into changing their testimony (it wasn't a shoebox) or made to second guess themselves. Also it didn't hurt that Anna was a seemingly very honest woman. Even worse was the defense had no money to call decent expert witnesses to rebut what the prosecution was saying and even if they did, it is somewhat unlikely they would get many top-of-the-line experts as it helping him was like a career killer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2015 7:32:02 GMT -5
In many books, I seen references to Hauptmann saying some variation of "Where are you getting these witnesses? They are killing me!" Sometimes the remark is reported as being in private; sometimes muttered in court. Sometimes it is directed at Reilly; sometimes to Fisher about Reilly. I don't know if there is an authentic source for this quote - my guess it would be somewhere in Lloyd Fisher's writings if it was accurate.
But what I am wondering is this (and I apologize if this has already been discussed). The suggestion behind the remark appears to be that Reilly hired or otherwise acquired witnesses willing to perjure themselves for fame or money. I know that lots of Hauptmann's witnesses had credibility problems - having mental treatment; having criminal records; etc. I believe I have even seen the accusation that Reilly gathered such witnesses deliberately. For this exact quote, if you are able to remember where you read this I could research their source if you are interested. When it came to Reilly's use of Witnesses it's very clear to me that Lloyd Fisher believed him to be a publicity-seeking, money-hungry, incompetent drunk. So whatever he writes is used to exemplify this: He complained bitterly about the attitude of Reilly. He insisted that Reilly let Fred Pope and I take part in the Summation but Reilly refused. He complained, after days of the trial, of the manner in which Reilly was conducting his trial, notably Philip Moses. He said to me one night, "Reilly make a damned fool of us all by such monkey shines as he had today with that taxi-man Moses." Sometimes he complained about Reilly calling phoneys with criminal records or with records of having been committed to the asylum. He stated to me, "He lowers me in the eyes of the jury." It was Fisher's position that Reilly got his Witnesses, not through investigation, but by letters sent to him from the public. There were some he should have called but did not, those who didn't show up, and some that he absolutely insisted should not be used but Reilly went ahead and called them anyway. When it came to money Reilly stiffed some of these people or padded their bills and kept the difference. He wasn't the type to spend real money on Witnesses. I also remember seeing a quote like this in Anna's Wrongful Death action. Here (as I remember) it was to exemplify the alleged conspiracy between the Prosecution, Hearst, and Reilly. So the idea was that Reilly was acting in the interest of the Hearst Papers and not Hauptmann which was the explanation offered as to why certain Witnesses were called. On Hauptmann's defense side his witnesses were wishy washy at best. Nobody seemed strongly opinionated and helping him was a pretty unpopular thing to do. Even those who truly did and believed him innocent were either bullied into changing their testimony (it wasn't a shoebox) or made to second guess themselves. Also it didn't hurt that Anna was a seemingly very honest woman. Even worse was the defense had no money to call decent expert witnesses to rebut what the prosecution was saying and even if they did, it is somewhat unlikely they would get many top-of-the-line experts as it helping him was like a career killer. A couple of quick examples concerning the State's tactics... Part of the reason they had so many Handwriting Experts was the idea to grab them up before the Defense could get any of them. Also, once they told Farrar he wasn't needed, his reaction scared the hell out of them. And so they put Farrar on the Witness list then hid him away. They were afraid he was going to testify for the Defense after being "rejected" by the State. They were also afraid of what Curtis could do to their case. Fisher, his partner Herr, and Virginia Lawyer Pender represented Curtis in his trial at Flemington. Fisher was in possession of the trial transcripts and had made comment about possibly calling Curtis as a Defense witness in the newspapers. Wilentz armed with this knowledge countered by paying Curtis and Pender to "hide out" during the trial. Furthermore, if things were going badly for the Prosecution - Curtis was actually prepared to testify that Hauptmann was indeed one of the individuals he (Curtis) had dealt with.
|
|