|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 7, 2020 9:33:36 GMT -5
amy it has nothing to do with the case. im sure the child was healthy alot of babys had rickets back then
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 7, 2020 9:35:06 GMT -5
you never will joe.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 7, 2020 10:24:41 GMT -5
A lot of kids had rickets back then because the Depression wrecked people’s finances and millions of kids were undernourished and not getting enough Vitamin D. This obviously didn’t apply to the Lindberghs; they were doing just fine. So why was their kid displaying symptoms of a condition that, all things being equal, he shouldn’t and wouldn’t have had? Because there was something wrong with him that went deeper than just a simple case of rickets—some sort of nutrient absorption problem that was producing those symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 7, 2020 14:21:15 GMT -5
amy it has nothing to do with the case. im sure the child was healthy alot of babys had rickets back then A lot of poor children and NONE who were Lindbergh's. Forgetting the "rickets" for a moment... imagine his reaction seeing HIS child delivered just considering the toe deformity. Does anyone (besides Joe) think Lindbergh said to himself "that's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" or was it more like "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son." And sure enough, we have Paluel Flagg who was in the delivery room, putting Lindbergh in touch with Carrel almost immediately. [Let's not forget Anne could not nurse Charlie and formula was not fortified back then. Most likely Charlie got rickets because he had not received the nutrients he needed from Anne. This is quite true but this child was "turned over" from Dr. Hawkes to Dr. Van Ingen. How many children were under the care of arguably the best pediatrician in the country? He certainly knew what the baby's diet was and the best course of action to take concerning any lack of Vitamin D.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 7, 2020 14:46:40 GMT -5
Don't overlook the possibility that Lindbergh Sr. was telling Wilentz the truth but that the body found in the woods was that of another child. Unfortunately for the Hauptmann defense, Reilly shockingly stipulated to the prosecution theory that the body found in the woods was that of CAL Jr., thereby preventing the defense from from using a potentially fruitful line of argument. We know that Lloyd Fisher, for one, was teed off by Reilly's stipulation.
As I have posted consistently on these boards, the known toe abnormalities of the living Charles Jr. did NOT correlate with those of the corpse in the woods. This alone is strong evidence for the proposition that the corpse was indeed that of someone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 16:33:14 GMT -5
A lot of poor children and NONE who were Lindbergh's. Forgetting the "rickets" for a moment... imagine his reaction seeing HIS child delivered just considering the toe deformity. Does anyone (besides Joe) think Lindbergh said to himself "that's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" or was it more like "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son." I have no doubt that CAL's reaction would have been the second one. I think there is evidence for him having had that type of reaction to Charlie's birth. When you read Anne's diary entry of August 16, 1932 about Jon's birth, Anne is nothing short of ecstatic and " relieved" (Anne's word choice) saying and thinking over and over that the baby is all right. Anne is not just referring to the birth going well. This is also about Jon being born physically normal. Why do I say this? The next entry in Anne's diary is her August 16th letter to Lindbergh's mother where she says and I quote, " The baby is here--a fine big (7 lb. 14 oz.!) boy, strong and well and absolutely perfect physically." The italics appear in Anne's printed diary just the way they appear in my quote. Anne's biggest fear was Jon being born with a physical abnormality like Charlie had and how CAL would react to another imperfect child. She was so relieved that it didn't happen to this son.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 17:04:04 GMT -5
As I have posted consistently on these boards, the known toe abnormalities of the living Charles Jr. did NOT correlate with those of the corpse in the woods. This alone is strong evidence for the proposition that the corpse was indeed that of someone else. Yes, you have been consistent in pointing out the inconsistency you see between Charlie's feet and the foot of the corpse. Along those lines, I wanted to share the following from Anne's August 16, 1932 diary entry about Jon's birth: While Anne was so happy about Jon being born all right, Lindbergh felt he just had to say to Anne, "He has a wart on his left toe." Anne took it as teasing by CAL. I though you might find it interesting that he chose the left foot and not the right one to use in his joke.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2020 21:21:56 GMT -5
A lot of poor children and NONE who were Lindbergh's. Forgetting the "rickets" for a moment... imagine his reaction seeing HIS child delivered just considering the toe deformity. Does anyone (besides Joe) think Lindbergh said to himself "that's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" or was it more like "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son." I have no doubt that CAL's reaction would have been the second one. I think there is evidence for him having had that type of reaction to Charlie's birth. When you read Anne's diary entry of August 16, 1932 about Jon's birth, Anne is nothing short of ecstatic and " relieved" (Anne's word choice) saying and thinking over and over that the baby is all right. Anne is not just referring to the birth going well. This is also about Jon being born physically normal. Why do I say this? The next entry in Anne's diary is her August 16th letter to Lindbergh's mother where she says and I quote, " The baby is here--a fine big (7 lb. 14 oz.!) boy, strong and well and absolutely perfect physically." The italics appear in Anne's printed diary just the way they appear in my quote. Anne's biggest fear was Jon being born with a physical abnormality like Charlie had and how CAL would react to another imperfect child. She was so relieved that it didn't happen to this son. Any possibility Amy, that Anne Lindbergh might have just been relieved in general to bear a healthy child based on the stress she endured going through Charlie's kidnapping and death, while at the same time believing that event might have somehow negatively impacted the health of the unborn Jon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 21:52:29 GMT -5
Any possibility Amy, that Anne Lindbergh might have just been relieved in general to bear a healthy child based on the stress she endured going through Charlie's kidnapping and death, while at the same time believing that event might have somehow negatively impacted the health of the unborn Jon? I would not call it general relief. Anne had concerns about the stress she went through during this pregnancy. The fear that she might bear another son who had any physical problem, as her first born had, must have weighed heavily upon her throughout this pregnancy. Her relieved state is beyond general with Jon's birth. That is clear in her diary. Anne is very clear in her letter to Mrs. Lindbergh about the importance of the child being "absolutely perfect physically". Charlie wasn't and she was happy to share with her mother-in-law that this grandson was perfect. CAL had a perfect child this time.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 8, 2020 10:07:30 GMT -5
amy it has nothing to do with the case. im sure the child was healthy alot of babys had rickets back then A lot of poor children and NONE who were Lindbergh's. Forgetting the "rickets" for a moment... imagine his reaction seeing HIS child delivered just considering the toe deformity. Does anyone (besides Joe) think Lindbergh said to himself "that's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" or was it more like "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son." And sure enough, we have Paluel Flagg who was in the delivery room, putting Lindbergh in touch with Carrel almost immediately. That's great Michael.. You've simply presented two polar opposite opinion choices for folks to consider here, while making absolutely no mention that truth might actually lie somewhere in between, or at an entirely different level. Based on your little impromptu poll, do you really have any doubts as to the type of response or number of Likes you’ll get on this board? For all of the broken-record sentiments we read here about how "everything must be considered if we want to discover the truth..", "nothing should be shrugged off" or "nothing is black or white", you're showing a very clear hand about your personal belief structure here. For the record, no Michael, I don't think Lindbergh said to himself, "That's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" nor do I think he said "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son." More likely, he realized with Anne, that Charlie from birth, might be in need of expert medical advice and support, which of course they would have been able to afford. And it seems pretty clear from the time of his birth, there was no sparing of expenses to ensure he was getting the best care and treatment available, something any parents in the same position would have done. At the same time, I’m sure the spectre of an entire world clamouring for photos and news of the baby, would have caused the Lindberghs, who were both painfully-private individuals to begin with, to retreat even further, while giving many the impression they had something to hide. Therein, a perfect potential breeding ground for yellow journal innuendo, speculation and one-dimensional theories. Sound familiar? Interesting too that you reference Lindbergh’s work with Dr. Carrel. However, true to form, you’ve left out a few critical details about the kind of research and development work Lindbergh immediately embraced, given his desire to assist in the treatment of his sister-in-law’s heart-related health issues, which preceded his meeting with Carrel, ie. his prior contact with Princeton's president John Hibben and Elisabeth's doctor. You’ve also omitted the fact that Dr. Flagg introduced Lindbergh to Dr. Carrel for the very purpose of attempting to discover more about how Elisabeth’s condition might be helped. It appears you've been shrugging again here, Michael. You may not be able to confirm the above information in the NJSP Archives Source Documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2020 11:10:13 GMT -5
That's great Michael.. You've simply presented two polar opposite opinion choices for folks to consider here, while making absolutely no mention that truth might actually lie somewhere in between, or at an entirely different level. Based on your little impromptu poll, do you really have any doubts as to the type of response or number of Likes you’ll get on this board? For all of the broken-record sentiments we read here about how "everything must be considered if we want to discover the truth..", "nothing should be shrugged off" or "nothing is black or white", you're showing a very clear hand about your personal belief structure here. Somehow I "knew" you'd find my post objectionable. Honestly, I wasn't taking a shot at you ... its just that I know you all too well and expected in your zeal to disagree you'd come up with something to prove it. One of these days I'll get it wrong but for now I'll just take another victory lap if you don't mind. Next, I think you are misrepresenting something I've said and will continue to say. In your need to find disagreement you've either misunderstood or have taken me out of context. Unless I was talking about a specific point, what I usually say (and will continue to) is that not everything is black and white and that often times the truth lies in the middle. It would be insane for me to say that applied to everything everywhere. I've cautioned in the past that usually someone's mind will either immediately bolt to one of the two sides but forget about the middle shades of grey. And yes everything must be considered which is why I consider everything myself. That includes your posts despite the obvious entrenched positions and ulterior motives displayed throughout. For the record, no Michael, I don't think Lindbergh said to himself, "That's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" nor do I think he said "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son. More likely, he realized with Anne, that Charlie from birth, might be in need of expert medical advice and support, which of course they would have been able to afford. And it seems pretty clear from the time of his birth, there was no sparing of expenses to ensure he was getting the best care and treatment available, something any parents in the same position would have done. At the same time, I’m sure the spectre of an entire world clamouring for photos and news of the baby, would have caused the Lindberghs, who were both painfully-private individuals to begin with, to retreat even further, while giving many the impression they had something to hide. Therein, a perfect potential breeding ground for yellow journal innuendo, speculation and one-dimensional theories. Sound familiar? Which was the reason he fled to Hopewell. Right? And yet he told Hurley he didn't want a Security Guard. This was something Lindbergh knew was needed for the above purposes - as well as many other reasons to include that his father-in-law once predicted their baby would be kidnapped if he did not. And yet he refused to hire him at that position, not because he wasn't needed, but because he didn't want people to think he was " afraid." Now why the hell did he move to Hopewell again? Divide by zero and you'll get your answer. So, you see, taking things at face value that contradict then accepting them doesn't make any sense. Interesting too that you reference Lindbergh’s work with Dr. Carrel. However, true to form, you’ve left out a few critical details about the kind of research and development work Lindbergh immediately embraced, given his desire to assist in the treatment of his sister-in-law’s heart-related health issues, which preceded his meeting with Carrel, ie. his prior contact with Princeton's president John Hibben and Elisabeth's doctor. You’ve also omitted the fact that Dr. Flagg introduced Lindbergh to Dr. Carrel for the very purpose of attempting to discover more about how Elisabeth’s condition might be helped. It appears you've been shrugging again here, Michael. You may not be able to confirm the above information in the NJSP Archives Source Documentation. Joe - expand a little. Are you seriously questioning my ability to do research? Or suggesting I have limited myself in some way? Go back through my footnotes. I'm everywhere. And so, I've read Berg and have cited his book in places. However, there's many more sources to consult isn't there? Do people normally just "show up" one day or is there a process? Should we assume any letters between Lindbergh and Carrel are "fakes" unless they show up in a book you happen to like? Phone calls? Prior meetings? What was said? You apparently know so enlighten me/us. But let's play a little game shall we? Read your post above. Now re-read it. You seem to be making a case that Lindbergh could walk and chew gum at the same time. You also seem to be making a case that he cared about his son's condition. So, of course, you don't see any connection between the potential contact, made once speaking with Flagg after Anne's delivery - no - not possible. That will never do. It wasn't the child on his mind at that time, it was his poor sister-in-law. I'm certain you are quite sure his son never came up. Also, the Morrow/Lindbergh families have NEVER created a cover story for anything either - right? So of course if the contact between Lindbergh and Carrel was about his son that would have been front page news ... well according to you anyway. Lindbergh blamed the Morrow side of the family for whatever maladies his first born suffered. It's one of the reasons there was a falling out between them after his son's birth. Next, this idea that he would never harm his son was disproven during his trans-continental flight when he willingly harmed both his pregnant wife and unborn son. Nothing proves his attitude more than Anne's reaction to the suffering she endured. It's my opinion that he would have let her die before landing that plane. It was all about strength and weakness with him. Finally, these are posts Joe. You are free to challenge them of course, but keep in mind the whole reason I've written my books is because its impossible to write a book on a message board. Most of the time I see you asking for information or discussing things here as if they weren't already addressed in the book or that information does not exist. If you see something in one of the books you want to challenge then please do. But ignoring what's in them is a hard sell. Well, for me anyway. There's room for all opinions. What's provided above is for consideration. The problem I find is that you don't want any consideration made into this angle. You reject it before pen ever hits paper.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2020 11:42:26 GMT -5
Don't overlook the possibility that Lindbergh Sr. was telling Wilentz the truth but that the body found in the woods was that of another child. Unfortunately for the Hauptmann defense, Reilly shockingly stipulated to the prosecution theory that the body found in the woods was that of CAL Jr., thereby preventing the defense from from using a potentially fruitful line of argument. We know that Lloyd Fisher, for one, was teed off by Reilly's stipulation. As I have posted consistently on these boards, the known toe abnormalities of the living Charles Jr. did NOT correlate with those of the corpse in the woods. This alone is strong evidence for the proposition that the corpse was indeed that of someone else. While there is no doubt in my mind the corpse discovered was Lindbergh's son, I think its important that we look at the official reasons why. 1. Gow identifying the clothing and blue thread.
2. Gow identifying the body.
3. Lindbergh identifying the body by slicing open it's mouth with a "meat skewer" and counting the teeth.
4. The hair. #4. The Prosecution planned on using Dr. Christian to testify that the hair in the bag, and on the corpse "matched" the hair saved by the family from his haircut. This sounds like a wrap. However, during the NJSP review their forensic lab was telling the AG that hair was impossible to match. That would mean had Dr. Christian testified as planned it would not have been reliable. Back to the review... the AG was skeptical and questioned this conclusion and got the same reply the second time around. I have no other documentation until Lane's report which agreed the hair matched. What changed in a couple of months I'm not sure. However, it was Lane's report that was obviously the basis for their conclusions in the State Police Review final report issued in 1980 (first one). Since the advancements made in science since that time there is no doubt they would be able to do it today but the hair is no longer in the custody of the NJSP.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 8, 2020 15:09:28 GMT -5
I never heard Anne wanted to leave Lindbergh or that he was joking about the kidnapping. Either way, we can't be armchair detectives about this. As has been pointed out before, there are all kinds of perfectly innocent explanations here--just like there are when a father uses a meat skewer to dissect his dead child's face. I mean, how else is one supposed to count teeth?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 8, 2020 18:22:44 GMT -5
Most likely, Wilentz and Lindbergh had colluded beforehand to produce this perjured "testimony." This is only one example of this in the trial transcript. Wilentz was so intent on getting Hauptmann convicted as the ONE kidnapper-killer-extortionist, which caused all ethical considerations to fly out the window. To accomplish this goal, Wilentz needed at a minimum the proper identification of the corpse. As it turned out, Reilly astonished everyone in Flemington by stipulating to the identification of the corpse as that of CAL Jr.
Wilentz's "scorched earth" prosecution tactics proved of great financial benefit to himself. He went on to become the head honcho of the powerhouse Wlentz Law Firm based in Perth Amboy, NJ, for about 50 years. The firm is still alive and well, to the best of my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 9, 2020 10:03:16 GMT -5
you dont know that for sure, whats the differnce if he wasnt? has nothing to do with the case. i guess the baby was healthy enough for them to say it was
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 9, 2020 10:06:16 GMT -5
i dont buy that at all, how do we really know how many rich kids had rickets back then? its poor excuses of why lindbergh would have had his son killed
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 9, 2020 10:08:35 GMT -5
thats the problem joe, if you think lindbergh killed his son he had to have had hauptman involved. the whole thing is so stupid
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2020 10:31:39 GMT -5
thats the problem joe, if you think lindbergh killed his son he had to have had hauptman involved. the whole thing is so stupid This represents the worst of all types of rebuttals (for lack of a better word). They usually include words like “stupid” and “impossible” but nothing of substance. Another buzz word used meant to shut down a discussion is “conspiracy.” So let’s look at the St. Valentines Day Massacre as just example. Capone has always been accepted as the man behind it. But he had an alibi. So since he’s obviously not the shooter then he’s innocent? And what about the hit men? Did they all just coincidentally show up at the same time or was it planned .... did they “conspire?” Can’t be because conspiracies do not exist right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2020 10:49:10 GMT -5
Quick correction: The hair sample evaluated by Dr. Christian did not include hair from inside the bag. The envelope only included hair from the corpse and the clothing on it.
Lane’s investigation: On pages 55-6 in V3 I’ve included something about his observations. The Newman source, by the way, first came to me from Joe. So it could be this additional observation concerning what Lane believed was an unusual characteristic that led to his conclusion. Either way it certainly didn’t hurt.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Mar 9, 2020 11:13:31 GMT -5
Don't overlook the possibility that Lindbergh Sr. was telling Wilentz the truth but that the body found in the woods was that of another child. Unfortunately for the Hauptmann defense, Reilly shockingly stipulated to the prosecution theory that the body found in the woods was that of CAL Jr., thereby preventing the defense from from using a potentially fruitful line of argument. We know that Lloyd Fisher, for one, was teed off by Reilly's stipulation. As I have posted consistently on these boards, the known toe abnormalities of the living Charles Jr. did NOT correlate with those of the corpse in the woods. This alone is strong evidence for the proposition that the corpse was indeed that of someone else. Reilly and Wilentz were extremely close to each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2020 15:08:41 GMT -5
you dont know that for sure, whats the differnce if he wasnt? has nothing to do with the case. i guess the baby was healthy enough for them to say it was Healthy enough?? That does not line up with Lindbergh's testimony. He said Charlie was "entirely healthy". That does not leave room for mostly, kinda or sorta. Entirely means completely healthy. Charlie was not completely healthy. Lindbergh was lying. He was in direct opposition to what Charlie's pediatrician, Dr. Van Ingen said in his statement to the prosecution in November of 1934. Do you think Dr. Van Ingen was lying?? It does matter to this case, Steve. Wilentz needed the jury to believe the child was completely healthy at the time of the kidnapping so it could not be inferred that there might be another reason behind Charlie going missing. I am going post Dr. Van Ingen's November 1934 statement here. I know it was posted somewhere on this board in the past but I think it needs to be posted here for this discussion. imgur.com/md5zLoM Page One imgur.com/KXhdqrt Page Two
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2020 15:14:32 GMT -5
Reilly and Wilentz were extremely close to each other. From the way Reilly conducted his defense of Hauptmann, I think there was definitely "cooperation" going on between those two men! Reilly definitely aided the prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 10, 2020 8:49:37 GMT -5
amy what would another lawyer do differnt? the prosicution didnt need help they had plenty on hauptman
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 10, 2020 8:52:16 GMT -5
they been saying this for years, all you people do is assume. iheard since 1992 that lindbergh killed his baby because he was unhealthy, what hogwash theres no proof of that at all and you people keep this myth going i dont understand it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2020 9:41:40 GMT -5
they been saying this for years, all you people do is assume. iheard since 1992 that lindbergh killed his baby because he was unhealthy, what hogwash theres no proof of that at all and you people keep this myth going i dont understand it Speaking for myself only.... There's been discussion about this possibility since WAYYYY before 1992. I've heard it from my neighbors, older folks from town (Lambertville), and even my Grandfather (who personally did not believe it) when I was a child. So I've been hearing it since the early 1970s. And since it was coming from those who were alive during the actual event then guess what? It was going on back then too. In fact, some of the original investigators suspected it (as anyone who actually read my books knows). Next, I believe A&M's book sort of resurrected the idea. Now, what's the course of action as a researcher or even someone merely interested? I don't know .... perhaps look into it maybe? So crazy me, that's exactly what I've done. And as a result I've written three books filled from cover to cover with information that I believe deserves to be discussed. At the very least. What I've found is that many simply ignore it. Why? None of it means he was involved, but I'm absolutely certain what's in those books isn't "hogwash." In fact, so many "myths" have been dispelled because of what's there. Again - I didn't make this stuff up. And so there it is all to consider. The problem I see is that certain people don't " like" this new material so they do not want to consider it - at all - and in their minds if they don't no one else should either. I do not agree. And so we're left to battle those with this affliction because they label anyone who does consider material coming from the Archives and other legitimate sources concerning something they do not like as "crazy" or whatever. It's just a tactic meant to get people to see things their way. I recommend debate and discussion. That goes for any topic as it relates to the case. There's plenty of things that I disagree with but completely understand "why" the opposing view exists. I both agree and disagree all the time but I don't find anyone "crazy" because of it. In the end I learn from most everything we discuss no matter what my ultimate opinion on the matter is. Without this Board I would have never been pushed to find the answers to so many questions. In the end I don't find shutting down a discussion helpful in any regard if the end result is to learn something. In short: Debate, discussions, and even scraps & squabbles, etc. are all healthy. Trying to shut down a discussion by any method, to include trying to belittle by making them feel stupid or something is not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2020 10:03:06 GMT -5
Reilly and Wilentz were extremely close to each other. From the way Reilly conducted his defense of Hauptmann, I think there was definitely "cooperation" going on between those two men! Reilly definitely aided the prosecution. I see it as Reilly being for Reilly. So he used whatever means necessary to benefit him over and above anyone and everything else. First and foremost his main focus was Money. Then there was the drinking, women, publicity, etc. His ultimate goal, in my opinion, was the confession which would have been like hitting the lottery. He could never have been in that position if he actually won the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 13:21:10 GMT -5
I see it as Reilly being for Reilly. So he used whatever means necessary to benefit him over and above anyone and everything else. First and foremost his main focus was Money. Then there was the drinking, women, publicity, etc. His ultimate goal, in my opinion, was the confession which would have been like hitting the lottery. He could never have been in that position if he actually won the case. I agree that Reilly was out to squeeze every cent he could out of every situation that presented itself during the time he was involved with this case. The drinking, etc. would have been an issue but I do not think they caused all of Reilly's poor and dangerous decisions he made as lead defense counsel. Just to name a few of those choices: 1. Asking the father of the victim if he believed his client was guilty of committing the crime. You mention this in your TDC Volume Three in Chapter Six. This was one of the most damaging things he could have done. He knew what he was doing. 2. Conceding the identity of the corpse. This was a murder charge his client was facing and he knew that his co-counsel was planning this as part of the defense of Hauptmann. He ruined that. 3. Asking the court to have the prosecution produce the plaster cast they had of the St. Raymond footprint of CJ and wanting the special agent to be available for questioning. Then Reilly never follows up on the plaster cast and never asks the Special Agent about it once he has the opportunity to in court. 4. His choice of certain defense witnesses who would hurt his client, while ignoring ones who would be beneficial to the defense. 5. Resting the case when the defense was to question Col. Schwarzkopf about Violet Sharp as being considered a participant in the crime. Reilly knows exactly what he is doing and who he is really doing all this for. He was not looking to win his case. He believed his client was guilty. I don't see anything he did that would have led Hauptmann to confess anything.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 11, 2020 8:58:46 GMT -5
your in the computer age mike, but i like live debates better. im not here to call on somebody out, but some of the discussion here is not new. since 1992 i heard it all. people tend to drift away from the basic facts that convicted hauptman
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 11, 2020 9:01:43 GMT -5
mike i said it was stupid cause it is. robert bryant didnt believe it i heard it from his own mouth when i met him. if lindbergh killed his son he must have known hauptman and we know he didnt
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2020 10:29:36 GMT -5
mike i said it was stupid cause it is. robert bryant didnt believe it i heard it from his own mouth when i met him. if lindbergh killed his son he must have known hauptman and we know he didnt Lots of people have lots of different opinions. Your mistake is believing Lindbergh would have to know Hauptmann or anyone else. Frankly I’m surprised that you think this way. Ever hire a contractor? If so, are you personally acquainted with the subcontractor and/or the men ultimately hired to actually perform the work? So if one of the roofer‘s men from Guatemala hits someone over the head with a hammer I’m supposed to believe he was your best friend or something? What I believed happened in this case is exactly what I wrote in V1. It was staged and there was an inside connection to this. Whateley knew exactly what happened that night.
|
|