|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2006 10:41:23 GMT -5
What evidence, if any, do you accept?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 23, 2006 8:39:46 GMT -5
There are many aspects of the trial that, IMHO, made it unfair. Several of those were listed previously by Michael. In addition:
Some of the arguments made by Wilentz regarding witness's credibility - such as saying the jury should believe the State's witnesses over the Defense's witnesses because the State's witnesses were American Citizens and that no American would have committed this crime. Using the fact that Hauptmann and his friends were German as a basis for attacking their credibility was improper.
- Wilentz's "changing the theory of the case" in his closing statement no doubt inflamed the jury, but did not really change the theory of the case. In a felony homicide case it was irrelevant whether the death was intentional or accidental. -
The claim that the jury was sequestered:
The proximity of the Jury to the reporters (who, of course, talked about the case) while taking meals - so close that one reporter (Damon Runyon) finally had to remind his fellows that the jury was listening.
The fact that they walked to the courthouse everyday (guarded or not) through a mob.
The fact that they deliberated with a mob outside screaming for Hauptmann's blood. Even Lindbergh described it as a "lynching" mob.
It would take too long to post all of my observations regarding Wilentz's presentation of the evidence in a deceptive manner, so one example will have to suffice:
In rebuttal of the Fisch story, Wilentz put Fisch's sister on the stand. She, of course, portrayed her brother as a poor but honest furrier. Wilentz, however, must surely have known this was untrue because the police's own investigation of Fisch showed that he was a swindler and that Hauptmann was one of his victims. Pincus - the man Hauptmann claimed to have corresponded with about his and Fisch's business relationship - was not called.
There are a lot of other examples...
Judge Trenchard made more than one questionable comment during the trial and in at least one case usurped the fact-finding province that is the jury's alone.
I could go on for several days on the topic of the fairness of the trial.
All of that being said, however, the unfairness of the trial does not make Hauptmann innocent. It could have been the worst kangaroo court in the world and he could still be guilty. The significance of the unfairness of the trial - at least to me - means only that the verdict cannot be considered when weighing his guilt. (None of this "the jury said he was guilty so you have to prove he was not".) Instead, I believe a reasonable person must start with the presumption of innocence and review all of the evidence de novo.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by steve for mjr on May 23, 2006 10:14:56 GMT -5
hi mjr, long time no talk. i think your ignoring the fact that hauptmann gave his lawyers nothing to work with. wilentz went for his throat. i dont blame him
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 23, 2006 10:29:22 GMT -5
Hi Steve. How are you? Well, I hope.
Hauptmann's attorneys would have had plenty to work with had they had access to things such as original witness statements, Koehler's report, the police investigation of Fisch, etc. That they did not is not Hauptmann's fault, is it? (Because I am not familiar with the rules of discovery and disclosure in New Jersey at the time, I cannot say whether Wilentz suppressed these items or simply did not divulge them.)
I have no problem with Wilentz "going for the throat". That is his job as prosecutor. I do have a problem with him manipulating evidence so that it misrepresents facts.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2006 19:34:12 GMT -5
Excellent post MJR.
Clearly Hauptmann isn't guilty of the crime he is charged with beyond a reasonable doubt - especially if the Prosecution was on the level. Yes he is guilty of something but exactly what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by honest procedure.
Would anyone on this board convict him of physically murdering CJr., on scene, while in the commission of a burglary?
|
|
|
Post by steve romeo on May 23, 2006 19:52:19 GMT -5
i would, because that was the way the laws were written back then. if your comparing todays laws, he probably would not have been electricuted. they said in the papers back then that if he was aquitted, he would got about 70 years in jail for extortion
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2006 20:33:57 GMT -5
I would like to say no, however the reality is that it would depend on the experience of being a jurist at that trial and the instructions of the court pertaining to the charges and specifications.
/
Yes, and let us not forget that Hauptmann did not exactly help himself by denying all involvement in the crime. What might have happened if he had admitted his role even without naming others?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 24, 2006 10:51:29 GMT -5
<<<Would anyone on this board convict him of physically murdering CJr., on scene, while in the commission of a burglary?>>> Just to be a little technical here... The charge against Hauptmann necessarily included another crime. Burglary was, of course, the underlying felony in the felony murder charge. To sustain a charge of burglary, however, requires another felony. Burglary was defined (loosely) as the breaking and entering of a house with the intention of committing a felony therein. In this case the felony therein was larceny - the theft not of Charlie but of his clothing (specifically, his sleeping suit). Larceny , however, required that the person committing it intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property. (That is permanently deprive the Lindberghs of the sleeping suit.) Forgetting for a moment the fact that the sleeping suit was returned without payment. There is no evidence whatsoever that whoever took the child intended to permanently deprive the Lindberghs of their property or their son at the time the crime was commited. As I said, just getting technical. IMHO, the State did not - and could not - prove the capital offense charged. (Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether Hauptmann was guilty.) Mjr
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 24, 2006 14:16:43 GMT -5
Is there any murder trial where everything comes out? If BRH had had better lawyers, better access to evidence, to discovery, etc., there is no doubt the trial might have ended differently. However, if BRH's lawyers were better, then we would have to say that the prosecution lawyers could have been better as well. More modern methods in forensics would have made the case stronger, particularly in terms of physical evidence.
Which would have changed the most? Would better lawyers, etc., for BRH have evened the odds given the other factors today?
MJRichmond's technical points in his last post go to the issue of trying to convict in a kidnapping case (especially at that time). Wilentz even mentioned in his summary the problem he faced -- in a backhanded fashion -- when he said, OK bring in anybody like Fisch and put his corpse down beside BRH as a guilty party, that does not lessen BRH's guilt. This was a way of sliding around an awkward corner that proving BRH the killer was difficult. It would still be so today. It makes it hard for the prosecution, because to say to a jury, we know there were others -- we just can't find them -- is a weak approach, risking acquittal. Hence Wilentz saves it almost as a throw-away line. In his shoes, probably all of us would have done the same. (I have heard it said that he was ready to indict Anna -- but decided not to try that approach.) It would have gotten him nothing.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2006 16:35:36 GMT -5
You both make some excellent points in your posts. As one who is not as well versed in either the law or Hauptmann's trial I wonder if you, or anybody else, could answer a few thoughts on this. As Michael said, we know Hauptmann is guilty of something. Now depending on your personal beliefs that something could range from simply possessing ransom money ( and an illegal gun) up to the actual kidnap/ murder of the child. It seems to me that since the state needed to prove larceny ( of the sleeping suit) to make the murder charge work, eliminating this piece of evidence would end that approach. Why didn't the defense challenge the id of that suit more vigorously? Another question I have pertains to the strategy of the defense. Why not have Hauptmann plead guilty to a lesser charge, say extortion, and in doing so claim the suit presented to the Lindberghs was purchased by the defendant ( as I have heard claimed in several posts) ? Would that not have undermined a large portion of the state's charge of murder? Who was really in control of Hauptmann's defense?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2006 17:58:09 GMT -5
I had (forgotten) when applying it to the circumstances - bravo! You have certainly done your homework.
But how do you define "better?" Better at being dirty? I think if they are better, as I would define it, they don't engage in the underhandedness therefore Hauptmann doesn't get the chair simply based on the evidence and the law (as it existed back then).
It had to be burglary, larceny being an essential component. This is all very technical and I would never have understood it myself if it weren't for Wilentz's notes and Fisher's letters and documents. The laws now are much different. Here's the problem - The Defense never saw this coming and in fact, Lloyd Fisher couldn't believe it. I think we also have to understand that Hauptmann was insisting he had nothing to do with the kidnapping or murder of the Lindbergh Baby. Additionally, anything he said was challenged by another Witness. Therefore, let's say Hauptmann admits buying and sending the suit through the mail. Wilentz and Company would have quickly placed Lindbergh on the stand to say it was the same one.
The other essential piece of evidence is the Corpus Delecti, something which anyone would have had a very hard time to prove - yet - Reilly quickly accepted it as CJr. on the record and that (also) ended that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 5:16:15 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. But was there a period, perhaps prior or during extradition when a lesser plea may have been offered ? I guess what really interests me here is that I get the feeling that Hauptmann, while still in NYC, is almost at the point of a confession (of sorts).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 25, 2006 8:07:42 GMT -5
Kevin, the main difficulty in having Hauptmann plead to a lesser charge such as extortion only, lies within the trail of ransom notes, all written in the same hand, which begins in the nursery on the night of March 1, 1932. Even though the Rail 16 / ladder connection was not publicized before the trial, he must have also been aware of the possibility of having that evidence implicate him as the ladder builder. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of his involvement in the kidnapping from the beginning, and I can't think how he would have gotten around those osbstacles pleading a lesser charge.
I also believe Hauptmann was very close to spilling his guts while in New York, but that after he realized he was being prosecuted as sole participant, he resolved to fight the charges with the same grim and steely determination that became his ultimate trademark. I agree with your point that Hauptmann's stance was essentially all or nothing and because of this he may well have been prosecuted and convicted of more than he was actually guilty of. And of course, he did himself no favours through his long, self-suffering silence.
I often wonder if the relationship between Hauptmann and Fawcett had reached a kind of stalemate, due to Fawcett realizing his client was clearly complicit yet having achieved absolutely no concession from Hauptmann towards a reasonable defense strategy. If this was the case, the Hearst Newspapers' injection of Reilly as chief counsel would seem to have immediately erased that concern. And it also ensured an impending battle of one entrenched side against another, which is exactly what Hearst was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 25, 2006 8:39:12 GMT -5
Curious to ask why would any of you believe Hauptmann was ready to concede his guilt in any part or the whole part of this crime ? I've seen nothing but consistency to his claim of innocence. There were moments if he was guilty to have thrown in the towel and say OK I'm involved but stayed his course through it. Situation one certainly would have been Condon's telephone number written in his home and then first saying it must be his handwriting. Situation two was a moment Anna and Richard were discussing the handwriting of the notes and Richard admitting it is strikingly similar to his and that he could not understand how that could be.
My opinion is that if he was guilty there would be a burden pressed upon him that a confession would bring to him or his family. I don't think I buy this all or nothing opinion because I believe at that point you are conceding defeat. I don't think he was that stupid to understand what was going on. Any hope he had seemed to be focused on Condon. The question I have is why would that be? He had witnesses that put him in the bakery, parties, singing events and yet he relied on the hope of Condon.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 25, 2006 10:04:07 GMT -5
So many points in all these posts. (They are all complicated ones, and deserve very serious consideration.)
First, forensics had shown that the suit returned did have the remnants of stains - so I believe it would have been hard to argue that it had been purchased by the defendant and then used in an extortion plot only.
Second, Hauptmann's supposed readiness to confess is an extrapolation from Turrou's book by later authors. If one reads the chapter in Turrou's book, one sees many errors - although it is still a useful book for several points -- particularly the handwriting evidence. Turrou thought he was about to confess, but if you read that carefully, one can see Hauptmann attempting to find out what his chances were, a natural reaction. Later books make too much of that. Condon also thought that he could bring him to confess in jail down in New Jersey. He complained that the guards interrupted him just at the moment a tearful Hauptmann was about to confess. That, of course, was another of Condon's fantasies.
As to the top person on the defense team. It was Reilly. Fisher and the others were constantly frustrated by his behavior, conceding the body, asking CAL if he believed BRH guilty, the witnesses, the handwriting experts, etc. One has to remember that Anna was simply out of her depth, from the time she readily conceded to moving out of the apartment, to her dealings with defense attorneys and others. She did not turn to Fisher until after the trial, and even then she undermined him a couple of times. Not because she wanted to, but in desperation. What could Fisher have done, however, given the situation?
As for dirty behavior by the prosecution. Does not the defense occasionally (in most trials) use doubtful methods as well? My point was that one cannot freeze the situation on one side, and call for better defense attorneys on the other. Better prosecution, I should have made plainer, would be the result of better forensic methods in our time. Does that mean that the sum would come out as a zero sum game -- a standoff? On balance, I would agree better attorneys for the defense would have given that side a plus, but perhaps not a definitive victory.
Hauptmann and all or nothing. Well, one could have argued that he should have stayed away from the witness stand. He wanted to testify, and I don't think Reilly or Fisher could have dissuaded him. (Certainly Hearst, who was paying part of the bill, wanted him there. Fisher's vote would not have counted anyway.) But he seemed to relish the opportunity. Big mistake. What could he have added to the defense? In fact, he detracted from it with his nonsense about the chest, that never empty miracle of money that supposedly Anna knew nothing about. As Justice Trenchard said famously about the Fisch story, "Do you believe that?" Or allowing himself to get trapped on boad. Did he really think the prosecution did not have that at hand?
One simply cannot avoid a conclusion that Hauptmann contributed to his demise by his appearance on the stand.
No plea was offered before the trial, because the prosecution did not want to risk any danger to its case against Hauptmann. There was a plea offer, apparently, afterwards, but that is speculation because it was reported only through Hauptmann to Fisher. There is no evidence from other sources that I know of that such an offer was in fact made.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 12:21:10 GMT -5
I know this is probably a naive question, but wasn't the extradition the key element for Hauptmann's defense? I mean whether or not the defense knew exactly the nature of the charges to be brought against their client or not, the very fact of what crimes were committed in NJ vs NY would have spelled out the intentions.
As for the possibility of a confession to some crime, I think it must have been discussed, at least with Fawcett at some time. I don't see Hauptmann, or anyone for that matter, writing down a war injury diary unless it had some potential as a defense.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 25, 2006 12:42:17 GMT -5
The war injury issue or defense had to do with balance. Whether or not he could have climbed the ladder on such a night. I don't think it figures into the question of a confession.
Extradition was the key. Yes. But in those sorts of hearings the burden of proof is on the person trying to show that he could not have been where the government attorneys say he was. Therefore, Millard Whited is the star!
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on May 25, 2006 14:31:44 GMT -5
In this thread some interesting stuff. As far as handwriting, just consider Patsy Ramsey and Jon Benet--this is the modern era--no "expert" could/would state absolutely that Patsy wrote that ransom note--though she likely did--all they could say is that there were"similarities". So I am not surprised the first Lindberg note now appears to be different--emotions involved, intentional attempts to misdirect, etc. I am not using this line to say Hauptman was innocent--not at all--just saying it is an imperfect science--then and now--and one can not look for absolutes.
As for all these alibi witnesses allegedly Bruno had on his side--that has never computed either. So many, many months after the fact Granted, even in those days before CNN--I will concede the kidnapping was major news--but does anyone actually believe that when RBH was arrested folks actually could recall, "the night of the big kidnapping me and Bruno were dancing some polka and throwing-down some schnapps, no way could he have done it....."
After all the conspiracy theories are stated and inside jobs hashed about, and the clearly odd behavior of many of the participants, and the two sets of foot prints leading away, and the thumb guard magically appearing, and an eccentric old man in the middle, and a bad defence and an unethical prosecution--we are still left with this--a guy found with a great deal of the ransom money--him and Anne not working since--at least two accurate eye-witness descriptions of RBH passing ransom notes, most of the wood evidence appears kosher---a college kid who NEVER wavered from his original statement closely describing RBH's auto and his physical traits---if they had arrested someone else--we would now be asking "How in the world did they not arrest RBH?"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 16:06:05 GMT -5
Nice, I didn't even think of that.
But clearly Fawcett must have considered all the options, especially when faced with this money in a shoe box story. I would love to know how those private conferences went. Michael where is that time machine?
What would have happened, do you suppose, if Hauptmann had been found Not Guilty in NJ? Would he have been returned to NY to face extortion and other charges?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 25, 2006 16:35:52 GMT -5
I disagree with this statement as an absolute. We know that Hauptmann had noted his inability "to hold any balance" in the Huddleson Report interview of a few days earlier. I don't see anything in this single page letter to Fawcett which attempts to explain any negative impact on his balance, or connect it with any previous discussion of his ability to climb a ladder.
Rather, it seems to be a kind of summary of injuries he sustained in fighting, including being gassed, and right down to a relatively minor finger injury. The intent behind the level of detail presented by Hauptmann of being knocked unconscious by the shell fragment, appears to me, to be more along the line of it having indeed been a potentially-serious injury, enough that some of his friends believed he had been killed.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skepticIV on May 25, 2006 17:02:49 GMT -5
Not True! Me and 260 million others can remember everything about 22 November 1963 and all the people around us....all but Nixon and GHWB?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 25, 2006 17:28:35 GMT -5
How many "absolutes" are there in this case, anyway? Fawcett may have thought about an insanity plea at some point, but the assumption that BRH thought about it is surely much, much less of an "absolute." He had gotten through a pretty rough time at the hands of the police in that station -- and that is an "absolute" -- without breaking down. Foley could not break him with an appeal to his need to consider Anna and Manfred -- although he did cry.
Remember what he told Fisher, if I am stoic, I am considered hard, if I show emotion, it is remorse for the crime. He was right about that. He was had either way. I think that accounts for what Fisher called his Dutch stubbornness.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2006 11:56:52 GMT -5
This, as well as the others - are great discussions! I am trying to keep up but find myself stopping to research many of the points....
I don't think this reference is in Turrou's book - am I missing it? The first I ever recall seeing this claim by Turrou was in reaction to Scaduto's book made sometime in '77. Turrou said that he reported this to his Supervisors but if he had then he did so verbally because I don't see mention of it in any of his reports. And if its not in his book then I would wonder why it isn't. Anyway, I do agree that if it happened then both possibilities for him asking exist.
As to the other point concerning a "plea" after trial.... I know Wilentz made a deal with the Governor which he went back on. And while I know Hauptmann had made mention of the confession for life commutation after trial, I also believe both Fisher and Hoffman are sources for this as well - I will have to check this out.
|
|
|
Post by steve for mike on May 27, 2006 13:18:20 GMT -5
turrou got screwed by hoover. he worked hard in the lindbergh case, then in the 40s caught and investigated nazi spies. he wrote a book and had a movie deal while the trials of the nazis were in progress. i guess that was a good excuse for hoover to fire him. hoovers quote when asked why he fired him was "he wrote a book".
|
|
|
Post by steve for mike on May 27, 2006 13:23:27 GMT -5
correct me if im wrong, but i think turrou mentioned this in a letter to harold olson, but im not sure
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2006 13:49:56 GMT -5
Yes, he wrote HRO and this was a point he made in his letters to him. Additionally, he went to the press with this in order to try and neutralize the fervor created by Scaduto's book.
Turrou's departure from the FBI is complicated. He contracted to write a book on spies and offered a letter of resignation to the FBI. Hoover rejected it and fired him instead. This prompted Turrou to "shoot back" at Hoover calling him jealous and claiming there were no less then (8) people on Government Payroll whose only job was to write stories and articles on behalf of him.
Needless to say it got ugly.
Later, Turrou was being considered for positions in the OSS, MID, and Naval Intelligence but each time Hoover stepped blasting Turrou for "selling confidential information relating to espionage" and that he was completely "untrustworthy" therefore Turrou failed to be appointed.
So I suppose it depends on whose version of events you believe....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2006 20:09:21 GMT -5
The Trial at Flemington To the New York Herald Tribune: Governor Hoffman's statement that passion and prejudice have bedeviled the Hauptmann case carries the mid back to the disgraceful scenes at Flemington. It was there, at the beginning, that the damage was done. The trial moved in an atmosphere of hysteria which left doubts in the minds of thoughtful people and impaired the validity of the verdict. The excited state of popular feeling, the daily presence of the child's father (a popular hero) and the inflammatory language of the Attorney General served to created a situation which would scarcely make for deliberative sobriety on the part of the jury. The fact that the proceedings themselves were technically correct, as higher courts have affirmed, does not weigh against the initial perversity which no higher court can rectify. The powers at Trenton may well shrink from execution in circumstances where there is so large a chance of human error. Professor David Morton Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. March 28, 1936.[/i]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2007 5:36:50 GMT -5
Much has been made of the amount the State paid their Handwriting Experts but someone asked me a while back exactly how much the State of New Jersey spent Prosecuting the entire case. I can't remember who, and I am sure its been a while - sorry for the delay - but better late then never. At the NJSP Archives David Wilentz's entire ledger has everything. I xeroxed the cover sheet a couple of years back:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2007 4:50:19 GMT -5
|
|