Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 13:40:11 GMT -5
I think I posted this before, but it's so crucial it's worth repeating. There is a general rule that criminal defense attorneys do NOT permit their defendants /clients to testify as witnesses in behalf of themselves. The Hauptmann case clearly illustrates why this unwritten rule has much merit as a principle of defense trial strategy! I believe that is the preferred method of defense attorneys in most cases. Not so with Edward J. Reilly in this trial. He put Hauptmann on FIRST when he opened his defense of his client! I do believe Hauptmann wanted a chance to explain his side of things, but still, I would not have put him as the first witness.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 25, 2020 18:53:19 GMT -5
It hardly matters WHEN Hauptmann testified for his own defense. Putting him on the stand was one of Reilly's biggest errors at the trial, so big as to raise legitimate questions as to Reilly's mental status at the time, which I did several times earlier. Heck, Hauptmann was an uneducated immigrant who didn't have a great grasp of the English language. A verbal joust with a well-educated and cunning man like Wilentz was a complete mismatch, and Reilly didn't have to be a genius to foresee that his client would get destroyed in front of the jury and the world. If that same situation were to occur in recent times, the Hauptmann family would be suing Reilly for malpractice and similar counts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 21:45:55 GMT -5
It hardly matters WHEN Hauptmann testified for his own defense. Putting his on the stand was one of Reilly's biggest errors at the trial, so big as to raise legitimate questions as to Reilly's mental status at the time, which I did several times earlier. Heck, Hauptmann was an uneducated immigrant who didn't have a great grasp of the English language. A verbal joust with a well-educated and cunning man like Wilentz was a complete mismatch, and Reilly didn't have to be a genius to foresee that his client would get destroyed in front of the jury and the world. Putting Hauptmann on the stand was a big mistake but he made even bigger ones at that trial. Reilly knew exactly what he was doing. His choices were deliberate, not mentally deficient ones. Reilly did not care whether Hauptmann would be able to joust, as you put it, with Wilentz. If he had cared, he would have been on his feet objecting instead of letting Wilentz have his way with his client. I do agree that would be an option.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2020 9:35:30 GMT -5
Speaking of Reilly, I discovered this interesting letter some time ago and thought I'd find more in order to develop upon it's discovery. Honestly, I haven't. My first question is why Wilentz was using Harry Whitney as the go between to arrange a meeting with Reilly. The NJSP never stopped following or investigating him this entire time, and I assume that was at the request of the AG's office. Next, clearly the word "alone" is stressed which implies (to me at least) this was a term/goal of the request. Anyone have any ideas or thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 13:35:03 GMT -5
Maybe Whitney, trying to keep his foot-in-the-door with Hauptmann's defense, volunteered to be this go-between. It would not surprise me in the least if Reilly wanted to reach out to Wilentz, pre-trial, to "discuss" the case. I shall think about this letter and see if I can come up with any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2020 10:27:12 GMT -5
Maybe Whitney, trying to keep his foot-in-the-door with Hauptmann's defense, volunteered to be this go-between. It would not surprise me in the least if Reilly wanted to reach out to Wilentz, pre-trial, to "discuss" the case. I shall think about this letter and see if I can come up with any ideas. I keep thinking about all of the supposed "mistakes" that Reilly made and consider that some were obviously intentional due to his deal with the Hearst Syndicate. I also can't get out of my head what Lloyd Fisher wrote... That Reilly was effusive and " deferential to the Attorney General" and felt there was a sense of " palship" between them. ( See V3 pages 557-8). With this in mind, Whitney appears to have been utilized to set up a "secret" meeting. "Secret" meaning that other defense co-counsel wouldn't know what was discussed. Could this be the explanation for why some of "Reilly's Blunders" took place? Could these "clown tactics" and other "maneuvers" have been part of a plan and/or collusion between Wilentz and Reilly? Here is the memo that kicked off the Whitney investigation. It extended into January, and there's even an investigation made in March. It's from a folder I labeled the "November 6th memos." I'm not sure if I assembled them together from various places or if they were all in one spot at the NJSP Archives. They give an interesting snap-shot inside the minds of the State and the NJSP at that stage.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 28, 2020 11:52:30 GMT -5
Good chance that Harry J. Whitney was part of the Whitney family, which was prominent in "high society" in New York and surroundings in this era. A letterhead with "Hotel Pennsylvania" as his presumed address would fit with that impression.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 28, 2020 12:30:27 GMT -5
Good chance that Harry J. Whitney was part of the Whitney family, which was prominent in "high society" in New York and surroundings in this era. A letterhead with "Hotel Pennsylvania" as his presumed address would fit with that impression. I believe this was the same Harry Whitney, whose real name was Harry Weisensee, a relative of Anna and who arranged for James Fawcett to to originally represent Hauptmann. As Amy suggested, I also believe he was trying to keep his foot in the door with the defense counsel, following the replacement of Fawcett with Edward Reilly.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 28, 2020 14:08:39 GMT -5
Many newspapers, and some books on the case, confirm that Harry Whitney was Harry Weisensee. Weisensee is also in the footage from the University of South Carolina, (MIRC). That's the one with James Fawcett, Anna Hauptmann, and her company of supporters walking down the stairs to meet the press. "Weisensee, Aide to Hauptmanns, Freed by Court" Brooklyn Daily Eagle Wednesday May 15, 1935 www.newspapers.com/image/52840902/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 17:02:48 GMT -5
I keep thinking about all of the supposed "mistakes" that Reilly made and consider that some were obviously intentional due to his deal with the Hearst Syndicate. I also can't get out of my head what Lloyd Fisher wrote... That Reilly was effusive and " deferential to the Attorney General" and felt there was a sense of " palship" between them. ( See V3 pages 557-8). With this in mind, Whitney appears to have been utilized to set up a "secret" meeting. "Secret" meaning that other defense co-counsel wouldn't know what was discussed. Could this be the explanation for why some of "Reilly's Blunders" took place? Could these "clown tactics" and other "maneuvers" have been part of a plan and/or collusion between Wilentz and Reilly? I completely agree with Lloyd Fisher's assessment of Reilly. It is very clear in the trial transcript how Reilly conducted himself with Wilentz in the courtroom. He called Wilentz "General" as if he was some ranking officer in that courtroom. He would defer to Wilentz at times about things. Reilly was sending a message to that jury every time he did this. The example you bring up from V3 where Reilly rests the defense case to keep Fisher from calling Schwarzkopf to the stand with his press releases about Violet Sharp is one of the top deliberate acts Reilly performed in that court room to aid Wilentz and hurt his client's case. You clearly see at whose altar Reilly is worshipping. Yes, that could be why he chose Whitney to set up that meeting. Reilly needed to get his footing concerning how far he can go with his defense. Reilly believed Hauptmann to be a guilty party in this crime and he wanted Wilentz to know this. Reilly needed to have this meeting for sure. Reilly using Whitney to arrange this meeting is curious. Before the date that the letter you posted was written, Wilentz had barred Whitney from making anymore visits to Hauptmann's cell. I do believe, as I said, that Whitney is trying to stay in the mix and wanted to help Reilly arrange this so, like you suggested, the other defense attorneys would not know about it. I think it explains so many of Reilly's actions in that courtroom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 17:33:07 GMT -5
I believe this was the same Harry Whitney, whose real name was Harry Weisensee, a relative of Anna and who arranged for James Fawcett to to originally represent Hauptmann. As Amy suggested, I also believe he was trying to keep his foot in the door with the defense counsel, following the replacement of Fawcett with Edward Reilly. Harry Weisensee was related to Anna Hauptmann by marrying into her family. I believe Harry was the husband of Anna's cousin's daughter, Lena (Wally) Freiermuth. Anna must have known that Harry's real name was Weisensee. So why is he using Whitney??
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 28, 2020 18:08:16 GMT -5
I believe this was the same Harry Whitney, whose real name was Harry Weisensee, a relative of Anna and who arranged for James Fawcett to to originally represent Hauptmann. As Amy suggested, I also believe he was trying to keep his foot in the door with the defense counsel, following the replacement of Fawcett with Edward Reilly. Harry Weisensee was related to Anna Hauptmann by marrying into her family. I believe Harry was the husband of Anna's cousin's daughter, Lena (Wally) Freiermuth. Anna must have known that Harry's real name was Weisensee. So why is he using Whitney?? From what I recall, it was a case of Harry Weisensee wanting to "Americanize" his name and many German-Americans did this after WWI to avoid any potential stigma. I knew a woman whose original family name was Bierwagen. Her grandfather wanted none of that when he moved to Canada in the 1920's, and from that point he became a very proper British "Barnett."
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 28, 2020 19:01:03 GMT -5
Yes, even the British Royal family and their relatives Anglicised their German surnames as a result of anti-German sentiment during and after World War 1.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 28, 2020 19:42:50 GMT -5
It was quite common in that era for people with ethnic surnames in the more recently arrived immigrant and first generation American communities to change those surnames into shorter, more Anglican-sounding ones. The main purpose of these name changes was to neutralize ethnic prejudices which might otherwise work against them in the workaday world. This name-changing practice was probably most common among Jews, Italians, and Poles, but Germans and other ethnics sometimes took this route as well.
In Weisensee's case, the name 'Whitney" was not only Anglican, it was the name of a well-known elitist, high society family in the New York area. Plus, using the Hotel Pennsylvania address on his letterhead would enhance the elitist image.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 28, 2020 20:18:17 GMT -5
Many newspapers, and some books on the case, confirm that Harry Whitney was Harry Weisensee. Weisensee is also in the footage from the University of South Carolina, (MIRC). That's the one with James Fawcett, Anna Hauptmann, and her company of supporters walking down the stairs to meet the press. "Weisensee, Aide to Hauptmanns, Freed by Court" Brooklyn Daily Eagle Wednesday May 15, 1935 www.newspapers.com/image/52840902/Seems like Weisensee (Whitney) could have been a very treacherous dude, arranging for that pre-trial meeting(s) between Wilentz and Reilly. Although pre-trial meetings between rival attorneys would probably not be uncommon, judging from the way events unfolded at the trial, you might suspect Weisensee as the fixer. Seems like this smells like a conflict of interest. Separately, the small article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle below the one Sue links to indicates that the Roosevelt IRS was processing an income tax case against Hauptmann, then incarcerated and on death row. Apparently, the federal government was calling the money found in Hauptmann's garage "income." (In the 1939s, only a tiny percentage of the citizens, those in the higher income brackets, paid any federal income tax at all.) Talk about rubbing salt into the wound! This is the first I've heard that Hauptmann had an income tax problem. If anyone knows how this income tax case was ultimately resolved, please post.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 29, 2020 19:52:55 GMT -5
Anna Hauptmann testified at Weisensee's trial that she hired him as an accountant.
I wonder if Weisensee was of any help in straightening out the Hauptmanns' problems with the IRS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 7:03:52 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard that Hauptmann had an income tax problem. If anyone knows how this income tax case was ultimately resolved, please post My understanding is that Hauptmann did not file taxes. I will go through my materials and see if I have anything on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2020 7:07:05 GMT -5
Anna Hauptmann testified at Weisensee's trial that she hired him as an accountant. I wonder if Weisensee was of any help in straightening out the Hauptmanns' problems with the IRS? Harold (Harry) Weisensee was an accountant by trade according to the 1930 census, working in the paint manufacturing industry. Whether he helped Anna with money issues is something Michael might be able to comment on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 9:08:43 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard that Hauptmann had an income tax problem. If anyone knows how this income tax case was ultimately resolved, please post. From the New York Times - August 20, 1936: imgur.com/6qptEWG
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 4, 2020 13:25:30 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard that Hauptmann had an income tax problem. If anyone knows how this income tax case was ultimately resolved, please post. From the New York Times - August 20, 1936: imgur.com/6qptEWGThanks for the info, amy35. Anna Hauptmann must have had a pretty good lawyer working for her. Small consolation when she had already lost her husband at that point.
|
|