|
Post by Amelia on Mar 30, 2006 22:11:07 GMT -5
Does anyone have any evidence to whether Hauptmann had a fair trial or not? And does anyone have ideas of how the media/press affected the verdict? I've been wondering...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2006 6:14:40 GMT -5
Hi Amelia - Thank you for posting your question here.... One of the most important documents that relates to your question is the Hallam Report. I see that Ronelle took a good deal of time to type it up and post it on her web-site so there is no need for me to scan it: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/hallam.htmlAnd for further information here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/oscar.htmlIt's important to note this information is rarely posted without some sort of rebuttal or counter perspective. Everyone who posts here is knowledgeable and has their own view. They may agree, disagree, or have a position that is somewhere in the middle.... I have some other reports and some more information coming from Governor Hoffman and Lloyd Fisher (Hauptmann's Attorney). I also have more concerning the Jury as well. Let me know if you are interested in this information too and I will post it this weekend. Also, please feel free to ask any questions you have concerning any issue of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Amelia on Mar 31, 2006 17:10:21 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. I'm definitely interested to read more.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 18:31:35 GMT -5
Here's some more information hosted on Ronelle's site: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/duggan.pdfwww.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/hinder.pdf***There is no doubt that Hauptmann did not receive a fair trial. Here are some of my reasons: - 1. The Prosecution hired away a Defense Co-Counsel to the tune of $8000.
Example: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1143245051- 2. The Prosecution tampered with Defense Witnesses.
- 3. The Prosecution sent a State's Witness to pretend to be a Defense Witness and spy for the Prosecution.
- 4. The Prosecution illegally eavesdropped on Hauptmann AND his Attorneys.
- 5. The Prosecution bribed Investigators for the Defense.
- 6. The Prosecution hid exculpatory evidence.
Examples: A. Lloyd Fisher repeatedly made requests for permission to examine the Hautpmann home. On one occasion Wilentz granted it, and Fisher along with Experts Sam Bodine and John Schneck traveled to the Bronx only to be turned away by the NJSP upon arrival. When Fisher called to complain, Wilentz and Schwarzkopf played a childish game where they would blame each other and refer Fisher back to the previous person. Fisher was even told during one call to Wilentz that "he was sick in bed with tonsillitis and could not talk." According to Fisher: "I threatened to call the press and tell them the whole story, and then he very promptly appeared at the phone, and in a voice as strong as mine, started to make excuses." Wilentz then agreed to give permission to Fisher but never followed through. So by the conclusion of the trial, the Defense never had an opportunity to enter the house. Wilentz even attempted "damage control" on this point by bringing it up in his summation, made light of it by insinuating it was meaningless. B. According to Lloyd Fisher, the notes were brought in to the Hotel Hildebrecht for less than half of a day with multiple representatives from the Prosecution present. Fisher further stated: "They stayed in the room with our experts who were examining the notes; our experts were not permitted to have copies of the notes, and so far as an opportunity to compare was concerned, or to study them, there wasn't any. This is contrary to all accepted practice." This fact is supported by Defense handwriting expert J.M. Trendley who testified that the Prosecution did not want him to look at the originals and when they finally did - only gave him and the others 2 hours. He further testified that since so many people were trying to look at these notes at the same time in such a short period, it was hard to make a proper examination. Asst. Attorney General Joseph Lannigan, instead of being embarrassed that the Prosecution had obstructed the Defense by not allowing their experts to properly examine the notes, instead seized the opportunity to use and emphasize the 2 hour examination to imply Trendley was improperly drawing conclusions without the proper examination required. Additionally, Defense handwriting expert Rudolph Thielen said that during the examination of these notes, "...the Assistant Attorney General walked in dead drunk..." and that "while examining the ransom notes there were about 12 State Troopers in the room who interfered with our examination...." lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1143232895- 7. The Prosecution prepped and encouraged its Witnesses to lie under oath.
- 8. The Prosecution issues subpoenas, not for the purposes of testimony, but in order to fill the Court room with those friendly with the State to influence the Jury.
- 9. The Prosecution had notables, to include Lindbergh, sit at the Prosecutions table in order to influence the Jury.
- 10. The Prosecution illegally utilized the media to influence the outcome of the case.
- 11. The Prosecution presented a "Lone-Wolf" case against Hauptmann when they personally believed more then one person was involved and fudged the charges in order to bring jurisdiction into Hunterdon County.
- 12. Etc. etc.
***Here is Hoover's position exemplified in this memo to Wilentz: img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blk0099hm.jpg***In the 1989 version of Whipple's book, Alan Dershowitz writes the introduction which, although only 3 short pages long, seems to accurately put everything into proper perspective. Here's an excerpt: Few today deny that the trial was unfair-not only by current standards, but by the far less rigorous standards of the 1930's. But many who acknowledge the trial's unfairness, insist that Hauptmann was plainly guilty. Others disagree, pointing to inconsistencies in the State's case, new evidence and the old frame-up theory. Yet others argue-quite plausibly-that in light of the procedural unfairness at the trial, it is impossible to arrive at a reasoned judgment concerning Hauptmann's guilt or innocence at this late date. ***From the address by Honorable Thomas D. Thacher, Former Solicitor General of the United States, 8-25-36: Since the small town of Flemington, New Jersey, became the center of the most shocking example of the evil practices which have surrounded the trial of sensational cases in this country for many years, public condemnation of such excesses has been thoroughly aroused and there is an insistent demand that these evils be stopped. In recognition of this situation, under the leadership of the American Bar Association, a Sp[ecial Committee on Cooperation between the Press, Radio and the Bar against publicity interfering with the fair trial of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings has been organized..... ***From an undated Memo written by Governor Hoffman: Bruno Hauptmann is dead and his ashes blown to the winds. I do not believe that complete justice was done by his execution. Until such time as evidence proving my belief becomes available, I will keep my belief to myself. It is an honest belief and my adherence to it has cost me abuse and misunderstanding that I could have avoided by surrendering to the clamor of those who do not agree with me. I acted as I did in the Hauptmann Case in defense of what I believe to be impartial justice. I did not seek to serve any personal motive nor have I served any personal advantage. What I did was done for a basic principle of free government. I have no regrets and if it was all to do over again, I would not change my course.
I hope that from this time forward, any further contributions to th e literature of the Hauptmann Case will be prepared in a judicial, rather than in a holiday, atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by Amelia on Apr 1, 2006 21:28:38 GMT -5
Ahhh...you are one of the most helpful people I have ever talked to.
|
|
|
Post by steve for amelia on Apr 2, 2006 7:15:50 GMT -5
mike talks all this stuff but the bottom line the defense brought nothing to the table. hauptmanns witnesses were bad, hauptmann lied on the stand, the woodevidence is very clear dispite notions it was faked, a four year study by kel proved otherwise. fisher going in the attic wouldnt have done much good anyway. when gov hoffman went up there with his cronies, who are highly suspected of plugging the nailholes with sawdust
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2006 9:06:51 GMT -5
I think Michael and others do us all a service by questioning and examining the legal system in it's case against Hauptmann. Ultimately this type of critical analysis of the proceedings protects all of us from an abusive judiciary. While I feel the verdict in this case was correct, it does not give any satisfaction to me when I see obvious abuses of power orchestrated by the prosecution. Having said that I think it is also fair to say that Hauptmann did not help himself by lying, perhaps to his own defense team, and going for broke by claiming total innocence. He gambled here and lost.
|
|
Amelia for everyone
Guest
|
Post by Amelia for everyone on Apr 2, 2006 12:29:42 GMT -5
So do you think if Hauptmann had a fair trial, would he be convicted or not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2006 14:15:32 GMT -5
Absolutely no.
Technically speaking, they didn't prove their case in the first place. Dr. Gardner's book points out the change in theory from Opening Statements to Closing Statements...
Anyway, if the State had decided to proceed fairly there would have been a different indictment brought against Hauptmann.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 3, 2006 7:42:14 GMT -5
Then I think he would have been convicted on the different charge. You just can't make the evidence disappear and don't underestimate the damage Hauptmann does to himself. He severely limits his defense options with his all or nothing position and foolish denials.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2006 9:07:08 GMT -5
What matters most in this case towards the question of guilt, notwithstanding the trial process itself, was the established connection to Hauptmann from beginning to end.
This through the nursery note and subsequent notes linked together by the unique symbol, and the independent, too numerous to be mistaken similarities within his handwriting, the kidnap ladder with its unique tool mark evidence and Hauptmann's plane, the clear correlation between Rail 16 and Hauptmann's attic, all the way up to the time of his arrest and possession of 30% of the ransom money, and the phony story he then spun to explain how he acquired it. There's a whole lot of ground in between, but these points represent more than enough foundation to clearly show he was willingly involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2006 18:01:48 GMT -5
I think you're evading the question which requires a black or white answer.... If you examine indictment - the Prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1. Hauptmann "willfully, feloniously and of his malice aforethought kill and murdered" Charles Jr.. The indictment says that Charles Jr. was killed and murdered by BRH.
2. Also consider that a Principal is the "one who is the actual perpetrator of the criminal act."
3. In addressing the Bill of Particulars, the State claimed the child died of "a fracture of the skull, the result of external violence." To this day we still don't know this to be true.
4. In order for the conviction under the indictment, BRH would have to perpetrate the murder on site during the commission of the "burglary." Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever of a willful, deliberate and/or premeditated murder. Next, there is no evidence whatsoever that the death of this child occurred in Hunterdon County. In fact, the corpus delecti being found in Mercer county suggests the events, whatever they may be, were independent actions and therefore separate crimes.
5. There is no evidence that places Hauptmann at the scene of the crime excepting perjured testimony. Even if you believe Hauptmann wrote the nursery note, built the ladder, and possessed the ransom money because he was CJ - none of these things are sufficient upon which a jury could predicate the presence of Hauptmann in that nursery on March 1, 1932.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 7:49:26 GMT -5
Michael, if you were the prosecutor what, if any, charges would you bring against Hauptmann? Believing, as I think you do, that there are multiple participants in this crime, how would your strategy with Hauptmann take this into account?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2006 9:03:13 GMT -5
That's a tough question for several reasons....
The laws which existed back then were different then they are now.
Additionally, I am not an Attorney. However, I don't believe laws are "secret laws" that only Attorney's can understand. So while I respect them and their abilities, I remind everyone that Attorney's often disagree with one another so they are not above being incorrect.
I rely directly on the source material in order to understand the situation. As a result, it is quite clear to me the Prosecution hired Newark Attorney Harold Fisher (for $5000 but only paid him $2825) specifically to find a way to finagle the law and exploit a grey area in order to get Hauptmann the chair. Of course he assisted in other areas as well but this was his main function.
According to the my research documentation, they were (among other things) trying to avoid at all costs any question of Autrefois Acquit if BRH were indicted for kidnapping.
Anyway, if I were to answer your question truthfully, I would have to do an enormous amount of research. The bottom line is that he should have been charged with something...but that something obviously did not carry the Death Penalty, therefore, they resorted to underhanded tactics in order to ensure BRH did suffer the full penalty of law.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 10:00:11 GMT -5
Yes, that may have been an unfair question to ask you. I was mainly interested in how strategy entered into the whole process, particularly in regard to the issue of indictments of other participants. In other words. drop the hammer on the guy you caught at all costs in the hope he will give up others. I can't help but think that Shoenfeld's advice on how to deal with Hauptmann would have yielded more.
|
|
|
Post by Alvin Ruffin on Apr 7, 2006 14:05:14 GMT -5
Good stuff,Michael..........
|
|
|
Post by STEVE ROMEO on Apr 7, 2006 15:48:44 GMT -5
YOU GOT TO TAKE IN EFFECT THE BETTER FORENSICS TODAY. HAUPTMANN WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED, BUT I DONT THINK HE WOULD HAVE GOT THE DEATH PENALTY. IF AQUIITTED, HE WAS GOING AWAY FOR EXTORTION
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2006 16:38:43 GMT -5
Good point, DNA and new methods of fingerprint detection such as cyanoacrylate and MXRF would no doubt reveal much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2006 22:16:34 GMT -5
Thanks Alvin - stick around a while!
Steve,
I agree he would have been charged with extortion. Foley claimed he had an "iron-clad" case against him. No doubt he was basing this on the handwriting in conjuction with the ransom money found in his possession but how would he have handled the situation if Reihl & Uebel were to have testified at THAT trial?
Kevin,
Am I understanding you to say they would have found even more fingerprints? I think we all know by now that none of the fingerprints or footprints found at the scenes of the crimes were Hauptmann's. How would the new methods assist if we don't know whose they were?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 9:05:36 GMT -5
"Am I understanding you to say they would have found even more fingerprints? I think we all know by now that none of the fingerprints or footprints found at the scenes of the crimes were Hauptmann's. How would the new methods assist if we don't know whose they were?" (MM)
I think it may be more accurate to say that no fingerprints processed were identifiable as Hauptmann's. The ladder was compromised and was difficult in any case to detect latents using the methods available. The footprints are even more questionable as it seems many were not recorded and present another difficult means of identification with the methods and analysis of the day.
|
|
|
Post by i agree on Apr 8, 2006 9:20:39 GMT -5
i agree with kelson, that nj state polise were idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2006 11:43:28 GMT -5
I think it may be more accurate to say that no fingerprints processed were identifiable as Hauptmann's. The ladder was compromised and was difficult in any case to detect latents using the methods available. The footprints are even more questionable as it seems many were not recorded and present another difficult means of identification with the methods and analysis of the day. Actually the Silver Nitrate pulled up a ton of usable prints in addition to some which weren't. A couple were discovered under the rung in the mortise which could have only been left by someone building the ladder. I suppose your point being that what usable prints existed didn't match Hauptmann's and that's true. However, I think we must consider that prints found were crossed with those know to have handled the ladder post-kidnap and only Bornmann's matched up. The other point is that casts and measurements were made of the questioned footprints at both Hopewell and St. Raymond's. I have precise measurements of one print to include width. We have to remember they were grabbing every shoe Hauptmann owned (still at the NJSP Headquarters to this day) and none matched. I don't know how much more advancements are necessary in this area for those prints to match Hauptmann's.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 13:57:18 GMT -5
Yes, but of the footprints at Hopewell how many were recorded?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2006 7:17:48 GMT -5
Yes, but of the footprints at Hopewell how many were recorded? This is a difficult question to answer. There weren't reports written concerning everything which occurred there and especially regarding the footprints. I have the photography records which clearly show investigation yet no reports to compliment them. Let me say that I don't believe they were written and then "deep-sixed" later on....just that in some situations they simply did not write reports - I don't know why but I have found this to be the case in other instances as well. Of course I am not the "end-all" authority so anyone is welcomed to debate they may have been tucked away ex post facto - this also has occurred but I just don't think that happened here for a couple of reasons. We don't know how many casts were made but thanks to Dr. Gardner certainly one was made at Hopewell. At least (2) were made at St. Raymond's. Many photographs were made of those at Hopewell and of course DeGaetano measured the one directly beneath the window. I agree that if a modern day forensic team arrived at Highfields on 3-1-32 they would have found much more, of course, but what was there as discovered by the Police does not link up with Hauptmann. I think this is important when considering the "Lone-Wolf" argument presented at trial.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2006 7:51:27 GMT -5
First of all I want to say that I don't believe the NJSP were "idiots". I think they were put in a difficult situation for which they were not prepared. They did the best they could under the circumstances.
I really didn't mean to sidetrack this thread with a discussion of modern forensics as applied to a crime in 1932, but if such science was available at that time and the crime scenes were properly protected there may have been more evidence to Analise. I really don't see the footprints and the subsequent "recordings" as being very reliable. In fact, I think if Hauptmann's shoe did match up we would probably be debating the issue of whether the castings were properly made and interpreted ( similar to the debate over Kelvins planer mark analysis). Unfortunately, both the terrain at Hopewell and the ladder were compromised. As for the cemetery cast. I am not so sure this was a reliable piece of forensic evidence either.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2006 8:57:43 GMT -5
I'm not certain we can say the footprint evidence does not link up with Hauptmann. I do believe the basic quality of this evidence and the way it was processed makes it highly inconclusive. If the muddy ground is soft enough to receive an impression, can we be certain that it will remain the exact same size and shape of the original impression? Did any of the ground "flow" back towards its original position before the plaster was poured in, a factor that would be greatly affected by the type of soil, its water content and temperature. If police checked pairs and pairs of Hauptmann's shoes, in an attempt to connect him as CJ at St. Raymond's, perhaps it was more than just a correlation of size they were looking for.
What about the actual footwear worn? We know from the observations and photos of the deep imprint by the ladder, that the kidnapper was not wearing standard shoes, but some kind of fabric covering, possibly over sock feet, perhaps over shoes or boots. Size variation could also be greatly affected here by any one of these factors. In this case, we might be more likely to be able to determine a connection between the accused and the same pattern of fabric.
It's one thing when police are lucky enough to reveal a distinctive sole marking, shape, or wear pattern as a specific identifier and then use this as a "what are the odds?" means of confronting the accused. In the case of these castings though, how much reasonably could police have gained from them?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2006 14:30:43 GMT -5
Again, the prints found on the ladder were compared to those known to handle it and unknowns were found. Some prints were found in places that could not have been handled by the public at large.
The footprints near the house were guarded, photographed, and at least one casted before being rendered useless. The Police sure believed they had legitimate evidence and certainly felt they would match Hauptmann's shoe.
They didn't, and despite their search for one of his shoes to fit they came up craps. Now in order for Joe's theory to fit then I would think Hauptmann's shoe would have to have been smaller, however, the problem of not fitting existed because his foot was bigger not smaller. So an attempt to account for the mismatch due to a shoe covering or over-shoe cannot be applied here.
It wasn't his print.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2006 19:25:44 GMT -5
I'm still trying to understand how the police could have felt they had evidence to be able to match Hauptmann's shoe, when the ladder footprint looked very little like a shoeprint, period. Are you sure they were not more than likely just trying every angle to try and fit the evidence based on some kind of misguided logic, by checking every pair he owned?
I don't really have a theory about the Hopewell or St. Raymond's print. I simply point out the fact that a casting is only accurate if it's a true representation of the original impression made. Again, do we know if either footprint had retained it's original size and shape by the time it was cast? I don't think we know for sure.
Wasn't Hauptmann shoe size a 9 1/2? I'm a size 9 1/2 and my foot is about 11 inches long. It seems to me the ladder print was at least 12 inches according to De Gaetano's flashlight measurement. So reasonably, he could have wrapped his sock feet with burlap or placed very heavy socks over them and still fit into that print. Therefore, I don't see how you can count out Hauptmann in Hopewell because of this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2006 21:22:27 GMT -5
Joe,
Don't you think if there was wiggle room concerning this point the Police would have done what you are trying to do?
They didn't. They placed in their reports and memos - in no uncertain terms - the prints did not match.
The particular print you make reference to isn't the footprint at the base of the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Nikkie on May 19, 2006 14:42:48 GMT -5
Does anyone have any evidence to whether Hauptmann had a fair trial or not? And does anyone have ideas of how the media/press affected the verdict? I've been wondering... The trial and the surroundings of the trial was all against Bruno. From the start, people just wanted to see someone put away, or killed for the crime that was committed. It had been such a long time since the baby was murdered, and nothing was to stop the prosecutors, and investagators from putting him away. The whole trial was a lie.
|
|