|
Post by Sue on May 16, 2020 23:16:23 GMT -5
Dr. Manuel Edward Marten, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, knew Hauptmann was guilty, and he might have been in a position to help Hauptmann.
Marten, author of the 1937 book The Doctor Looks at Murder, railed against the inept coroner system in Mercer County, New Jersey.
Hauptmann's lawyer, Edward Reilly, asked Marten to testify, not to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but from a medical science standpoint about the autopsy., saying that it was impossible to say when the Lindbergh baby died.
Reilly needed Mayor LaGuardia's approval to allow Marten to testify.
The Doctor Looks at Murder -- one more wonderful source because it examines the Lindbergh baby autopsy.
Had he testified, Marten might have been able to help Hauptmann escape the electric chair .
(Debra Blum's Poisoner's Handbook gives an excellent history of forensic science pioneers Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler.)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 17, 2020 7:22:54 GMT -5
Dr. Manuel Edward Marten, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, knew Hauptmann was guilty, and he might have been in a position to help Hauptmann. Marten, author of the 1937 book The Doctor Looks at Murder, railed against the inept coroner system in Mercer County, New Jersey. Hauptmann's lawyer, Edward Reilly, asked Marten to testify, not to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but from a medical science standpoint about the autopsy., saying that it was impossible to say when the Lindbergh baby died. Reilly needed Mayor LaGuardia's approval to allow Marten to testify. The Doctor Looks at Murder -- one more wonderful source because it examines the Lindbergh baby autopsy. Had he testified, Marten might have been able to help Hauptmann escape the electric chair . (Debra Blum's Poisoner's Handbook gives an excellent history of forensic science pioneers Charles Norris and Alexander Gettler.) So Reilly went to the trouble of trying to obtain the testimony of Dr. Marten at the Hauptmann trail. Then Reilly shockingly withdrew the defense's anticipated challenge to the state's identification of the body of the child found in the woods by stipulating that it was CAL Jr. Of all the foolish actions by Reilly in Flemington, this one was the most outrageous. In retrospect, one can surmise that Reilly at this point was suffering from dementia, secondary to neurosyphilis
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2020 7:46:25 GMT -5
I agree that Reilly conceding the identity of the body found in the woods was one of the many actions by him that hurt the defense of his client. I do differ with you as to the motivation of these actions. I do not believe Reilly's deliberate errors had anything to do with dementia.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 17, 2020 9:40:04 GMT -5
I agree that Reilly conceding the identity of the body found in the woods was one of the many actions by him that hurt the defense of his client. I do differ with you as to the motivation of these actions. I do not believe Reilly's deliberate errors had anything to do with dementia. The downward trajectory of Reilly's career after the Hauptmann trial is consistent with a slowly progressive dementia. He was admitted to a mental hospital a year after the Hauptmann trial (Behn, "Lindbergh: The Crime"). He had two predisposing factors for dementia: syphilis and alcoholism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2020 10:43:42 GMT -5
]The downward trajectory of Reilly's career after the Hauptmann trial is consistent with a slowly progressive dementia. He was admitted to a mental hospital a year after the Hauptmann trial (Behn, "Lindbergh: The Crime"). He had two predisposing factors for dementia: syphilis and alcoholism. Reilly certainly had issues with drinking. This was witnessed by many people during the time of Hauptmann's trial. I do not think it is the basis for his poor performance as the chief defending attorney in this trial. Reilly always believed his client was guilty and was not inclined to do things that might actually help him win an acquittal. When you read the trial transcript you will see incidents where Reilly is going in the right direction with his questioning and then completely drops the ball. In my opinion, this is not early dementia or alcohol driving his performance. He simply did not want to save his client. Reilly should have moved his court room chair to the prosecution table. That is clearly where he should have been sitting. It is interesting to note that Reilly, like most everyone else did, believed Hauptmann had accomplices. I want to post the article Edward Reilly did for Liberty Magazine which appeared in October of 1935, for those who might not be aware of it. This copy of the article comes from Ronelle Delmont's Hoax website. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/reilly.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 17, 2020 16:20:38 GMT -5
I will try to post the section about the Lindbergh case from Marten's book a little later.
What's interesting is that, according to the Cortland Standard for February 4, 1935, Rielly DID get permission to call Dr. M. Edward Marten to the stand to testify for the defense.
Marten, according to the Cortland Standard, was to testify that the baby died of pneumonia, and not due to a skull fracture.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 17, 2020 17:10:54 GMT -5
Brooklyn Daily Eagle December 10, 1936 See the "By the Way" column, about 1/3 the way down on the right, for the background story as to why Dr. Marten did not testify. Marten is also a part of the center article called "Detectives of Death" by O.R. Pilat. www.newspapers.com/image/52700793/
|
|
|
Post by feathers on May 17, 2020 21:26:32 GMT -5
This is a really interesting find! Thank you, Sue!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 18, 2020 14:38:16 GMT -5
After reading the complete "Liberty" article attributed to Edward Reilly, I have a hunch that Reilly himself didn't write the article for the most part, but rather had the article ghost-written in his name by Ousler, the "Liberty" editor. Part of this is based on the fact that Reilly would enter a mental hospital shortly after the article was published. The style of the article seems more consistent with a professional historian and non-fiction writer as the author, in contrast to a lawyer slipping in his cognitive brain functions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2020 16:34:27 GMT -5
After reading the complete "Liberty" article attributed to Edward Reilly, I have a hunch that Reilly himself didn't write the article for the most part, but rather had the article ghost-written in his name by Ousler, the "Liberty" editor. Part of this is based on the fact that Reilly would enter a mental hospital shortly after the article was published. The style of the article seems more consistent with a professional historian and non-fiction writer as the author, in contrast to a lawyer slipping in his cognitive brain functions. I agree that there was probably a Liberty ghost writer that sat down with Reilly who assisted with the writing of the article. I do think the content contains Reilly's thoughts and opinions. This interview/article would have been done probably a month or more before it appeared in the magazine. At the time this article did appear in October of 1935, Reilly was fighting a court battle with his wife in the Westchester Supreme Court in White Plains, NY. As far as Reilly's mental health issues go, Reilly would enter a mental hospital under an emergency petition filed by his mother, Helen Reilly, in January 1937. Here is the article about this from the New York Times dated January 31, 1937. imgur.com/sBWG1ig
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 19, 2020 5:17:46 GMT -5
The Doctor Looks at Murder
by M. Edward Marten, M.D.
Pages 49-52
I was asked by Mr. Edward J. Reilly, counsel for Bruno Hauptmann, to testify as an expert for the defense. What he wished me to testify to did not concern the guilt or innocence of Hauptmann but was purely a matter of medical jurisprudence. The indictment as drawn charged the defendant had committed burglary on the Lindbergh home, as a result of which, and during the course of which, the child met its death. The case of the state was essentially an effort to prove the simple alleged facts of that indictment. If it could have been demonstrated to the trial judge beyond a doubt that one of the elements of the indictment had not been proved, it might have been the basis for a directed verdict of acquittal. If the judge did not so rule, such demonstration would have a potent argument in appeal. My interest was in the element of the indictment that I have italicized above. Was it proved that the death of the child occurred as a result of and during the course of the burglary? My opinion was and is emphatically in the negative. The body of the child was found some months after the kidnaping in an advanced state of decomposition. An autopsy was performed by the county physician. At the trial this doctor was qualified as an expert and testified to two important conclusions: that the cause of death was a skull fracture, and that death occurred "either instantaneously or within a very few minutes following the actual fracture occurring." I consider this pure speculation on the part of this physician, because the great majority of pathologists hold that fractures of the skull, even though extensive, may survive indefinitely. Therefore stripping the matter of all irrelevancies, both legal and medical, in my opinion this doctor erred in giving any opinion whatever as to the time of death of the baby found. In other words, it was impossible to say when the child died; and by consequence impossible to say whether it died during the course of the burglary or not. CONTINUED
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 19, 2020 7:01:01 GMT -5
Now this may seem to the reader especially if he is convinced of the essential guilt of Hauptmann, as pure quibbling. I, too, read all the evidence, and as a citizen on the side lines I felt that Hauptmann was guilty -- but that is beside the present point. As a student and practitioner of medical jurisprudence, I feel that gross error was committed because of the coroner system, operating with typical inefficiency in Mercer County. N.J. The county physician admitted, under cross examination, that he had no technical witness present at the autopsy, and that he made no notes until some time afterwards. He also admitted that he had never heard of Alexander O. Gettler, toxicologist to the chief medical examiner of the city of New York, who certainly should be known to all autopsy surgeons as the discoverer of the widely used test for drowning, if for no other reason. In New York City that autopsy would have been made entirely differently, and the medical examiner would have limited himself to the statement that the exact time of death was indeterminable. It is the true scientist who does not hesitate to say, "I do not know," when that is the case. And Hauptmann would have been tried, and doubtless convicted, but not on the indictment as drawn for the Flemington trial.
I must confess that I was not particularly anxious, in view of my convictions about the larger aspects of the case, to appear for the defense. But I decided that I had no right to allow my opinion on the main issue of a case to influence me to withhold technical testimony, and I agreed to appear provided Dr. Norris had no objection.
Dr. Norris was a giant of a man, with deep-set eyes and shaggy brows. That morning he was not feeling particularly well, and he seemed to be regarding the world with cynical and sullen disapproval. He listened to my story, and to the technical basis for my opinion, to which he gloomily nodded approval. Finally I finished and sat for a few moments in silence before he said "that fellow's guilty..."
I telephoned Mr. Reilly that it would be impossible for me to testify. END (More on page 220)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 20, 2020 2:56:37 GMT -5
Thanks, feathers.
Dr. Marten should have testified as an expert witness.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2020 10:24:59 GMT -5
Thanks, feathers. Dr. Marten should have testified as an expert witness. This revelation about Dr. Marten is new to me and just further proof that there is always more out there to be discovered - even in 2020. It should be recalled that Fawcett was going to call three experts to the stand concerning this very issue. I never discovered their names but I assume Dr. Marten was not among them or it seems to me he would have mentioned this in the book. Fawcett was also going to subpoena Van Ingen. It would have been extremely interesting to see that testimony. In the end, given what we know about Reilly during the trial, I wonder if he even would have called Dr. Marten. We do know there were several people who expected to testify for the Defense but never did.
|
|