|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2007 18:24:49 GMT -5
Since the up coming debate in Flemington will be about Freedom of the Press vs. Fair Trial I thought I'd post a little on that subject as it relates to that discussion. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1174445216Here is a good snippet from what was presented by Honorable Thomas D. Thacher at the Meeting of The American Bar Association in Boston on 8-25-36 ( p6): In an able address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors last April, Walter Lippmann, analyzing the Hauptmann case, emphasized the following facts:
- That the police published and commented on the evidence before the trial.
- That the officers of the court did not provide an orderly courtroom for the trial.
- That no effective action was taken by officers of the court against spectators and reporters who took a hand in the trial.
- That the attorneys on both sides, by their public statements, violated No. 20 of the Cannon of Ethics of the American Bar Association.
- That the Governor, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, made ex parte statements to the press.
Thus emphasizing official participation in the evils which persist, Mr. Lippmann urged the adoption of the English System, and concluded:
"I suggest that we challenge the police, the judges, the lawyers, who connive at it, that we declare that they are subverting the processes of law, that they are acting corruptly, and center public attention on them rather then on the criminal in the dock." www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlippmann.htmAlthough this is the language of controversy and attack, I cannot believe that there will be no room for cooperation between the Bar and the Press. No good will come of a frontal attack by one group on another. The causes of evil are too deeply seated to be curable by the Bench and Bar acting alone, or by attempting self-reform of the Press in its treatment of the news. The evils will not be cured unless the Press, the Bar and the Bench have the will to cure them.+++ As everyone knows, J. Edgar Hoover made it publicly known he found the conduct of both the Prosecution, the Defense, and the overall manner in which the trial was conducted as an embarrassment. Of course Wilentz was none too happy about this and wrote the Director which prompted this diplomatic response:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2007 5:45:52 GMT -5
Here's a tangent to this debate as it relates to Governor Hoffman's criticism of the Press, in essence, going too far.... A peculiar state of mind exists among the publicists who disapprove of me and my administration as Governor of New Jersey. That they disapprove is their privilege, to which no one can take proper exception; opinion, speech and the press are free.
The peculiarity expresses itself queerly. If a newspaper writer or radio speaker chooses to attack me, they announce that attack as a demonstration of the freedom of the press. If I choose to defend myself against any such attacks, my defense is described by them as a heartless effort to create discord in the ranks of the Republican Party. To these gentlemen, freedom of speech and the press is a one-way principle; sometimes I wonder if, with them, freedom of utterance is not a convenience more then it is a principle.
These gentlemen are in a position of advantage. They can shoot their criticisms and go to lunch and forget them. I have to keep right on being Governor of New Jersey. The real victims of this editorial sniping have to got right on being the people of New Jersey. The Governor would eventually act by filing his famous $100,000 dollar lawsuit against famous radio critic Boake Carter for slander. www.otr.com/bcarter.htmlAnd that wasn't Governor Hoffman's only legal action against the media. The Trenton Times was also another of his targets later on.....
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 29, 2007 11:41:29 GMT -5
I have dealt first hand with the treachery that courts and lawyers make of simple procedure. I know the same person can slip and fall and either be awarded or denied by back door lawyer and judge dealings. My private eye friend was cornered by detective cars and beaten with bats for investigating such a case.
I was denied my right as last surviving heir to a million dollar estate, as the bank had illegaly let in laws into the safe deposit box, and the national bank used evasion and trickery with the judge to down play that illegal act.
That is how our system works, and justice is only irrelevant, making it hard to believe that guilty are guilty wondering if we have reverted to rules of inquisition. It is hard for most people even reading the Hauptmann case for the first time to believe most of the story against him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2007 20:46:38 GMT -5
Nowadays, I am confident in our Justice system. Is it perfect?
No.
I would suggest there are those who would argue the exact opposite, that is, alleging criminals aren't punished enough, or that the guilty have "walked."
The bottom line is not to let bias intrude upon the research one makes into this case. Of course its hard to do that, and I am not saying to ignore personal experiences, but we must let the facts dictate what's factual, and we must examine circumstances behind unknowns carefully in order to lead us to a reasonable position (speculation) as to what one may believe the true events were.
If you want something to be true then its very easy to ignore certain things then fudge something else in order to make it fit....when it really doesn't.
Today in NJ I believe Christie has prosecuted over 100 public officials, elected and/or appointed, for violation of the public trust through their criminal behavior. We can point to this as an example that people in high places are corrupt - but we also have to point to it as an example that people in high places are looking to hold them accountable as well. Then we must use as a control to these numbers all those who aren't doing anything illegal and serving us well.
In Hauptmann's case - yes there were lies told by (some) Police, Prosecution, and Witnesses. But there was truth told as well. There was some evidence that was fabricated. But there was evidence that clearly was not.
Was Hauptmann beaten? Yes - there's no doubt about it. Did the Police lie about him being beaten? Absolutely. But we know for a fact the FBI did not engage in that conduct and that Agent Sisk reported it to Hoover. Did these Police beat Hauptmann trying to get a confession with no basis whatsoever? No. There had been suspects who looked involved in the past and no one was lumped up.
If they were looking to simply frame someone that would have happened long before they ever caught wind of Hauptmann passing ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 30, 2007 0:42:49 GMT -5
Sounds like NJ is trying to improve, but cannot say the same for my town state.
One big issue with the case is the Mersman table evidence, as it gives an overall case impression that a concerned party to the kidnap story was trying to cover a big error in planning the missing $30,000.00 in gold certificates by saying it's buried. A very common late excuse for an overlooked detail, but one that also casts a shadow on the basic kidnap story, as they forgot there might be a question about such a large sum of money vaporizing.
This happens often in alibi's where they forgot one little detail that far outweighs the story and need an after event to correct like the Mersman table. The issue in this situation is that it does appear to be telling a story to reinforce the kidnap by giving an impossible to find money location that if the kidnap was true, would have been in Hauptmann's possession? Why was there even a fancy box made to hold the ransom money in the first place, as this makes the story sound like Pinocchio wrote the story to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2007 5:29:01 GMT -5
I wouldn't say "NJ is trying to improve" rather, the U.S. Attorney's office is doing their job. In terms of corruption my personal opinion is NJ is 2nd behind DC. As far as ethics, well, NJ is probably the worst. The state is so damned liberal its back wards. They sit around asking why taxes are so high, why there is so much gun violence, why health care is unle, and why car insurance costs more then the car payments themselves - when these problems exist because of their own liberal principals. These "principals" are responsible for these "problems." The answers are right in front of them, they are aware of them, but pretend not to see them but it contradicts their very liberal views......It's one of the 7 deadly sins - pride.
Pride. As it relates to this case we must first and foremost be willing to consider an alternative to what one presently considers the "truth" and we have to, to the best of one's ability, be as neutral as possible when doing so. There's too many people who discuss the case trying to "win" a debate about it.
We can't stumble into that pit-fall if we want the truth. We've all been wrong about certain things and this board was created with that in mind - to brainstorm and discuss differing perspectives in order to get closer to the truth. If anyone, to include myself, thinks they are never wrong well then there is something very wrong with them.
There is too much to be wrong about concerning this case then there is to be right about. That's why the diversity on this board is so important.
As far as the Mersman Table - I see both sides of the argument but my conclusions are based upon my personal observations of both the table, the original ransom notes, and the totality of other circumstances that I have considered but haven't shared.
Could I be wrong?
Of course, and I think anyone who has followed the board knows that I would quickly admit mistake if and when more information became available to prove my position wrong. However, I do not believe that is the case here and I strongly feel this is authentic. Whoever had wrote this knew the note's hole were made from this table.... There are various variables one could apply here but the bottom line is someone with intimate knowledge, in my opinion, wrote this.
The "rest" of the ransom money is another issue. They supposedly proved in Court that Hauptmann spent or possessed all of the $50,000 yet Wilentz demanded of Hauptmann to know where the rest of it was. That doesn't make sense. There's more to this story then a $50,000 ransom - of that I am quite sure.
The box made for the ransom is an interesting an unique topic. Kevin had kicked around some theories about this box earlier last year on the threads. Now, more then ever, I have been revisiting his hunches as it applies to this type of evidence because he seems to be correct about many of his points.
Anyway, maybe we should take these topics to a different thread. I plan on posting something else as it relates to Press/Fair Trial tonight and we've gone off the topic here....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 30, 2007 6:25:22 GMT -5
Well, we know for a fact that BRH was good with numbers and plans. So there is no doubt that he had some good reason to come up with these dimensions. They are either derivative of that which they will contain or that in which they will be contained.
Clues; He is not concerned with the material, in fact the word box is not used, he calls for a packet. So durability is not key. Could this be a result of prior money handling experience ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2007 21:40:36 GMT -5
I agree that whoever came up with the idea did so for a reason. I think you were on the right track in your suggestions and possibilities mentioned earlier. For me, the fact the box wasn't found in Hauptmann's garage indicates the money had indeed been elsewhere originally. +++ The following is some great snippets from George Hawke's Thesis entitled: Trial By Fury: The Hauptmann Trial: Meantime, the press and radio cried out with indignation. Upon Hauptmann's arrest, the press conducted its own trial by newspaper. Newspapers convicted Hauptmann before he ever faced the prosecution; they made the little country court house, woefully unsuited for such a trial, a madhouse of publicity; they created the Roman Holiday spirit which characterized the crowds assembled in the country courtroom. It was partially owing to the newspapers' influence that police ethics were abandoned.
The prosecution had to secure a conviction or be swept up in the wafe of condemnation with the criminal. A crime consisting of kidnaping, murder, and extortion, which was known to have been perpetrated by more then one man, enveloped Hauptmann alone. (p.126) In the realm of public opinion, it is the judge who must control the facets of public opinion to avoid another Hauptmann trial. Perhaps, the English rule that it is contempt of court to issue publications which are calculated to prejudice or prevent fair and impartial action in a cause of judicial investigation then pending may be enforced some day in the United States (Footnoted -Robbins, ABAJ XXI '35 p302). Regardless, public opinion should not constitute the arena of a legal battle. (p.129)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2007 5:14:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2008 15:13:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 15, 2013 14:09:06 GMT -5
In the case of Hauptmann, no matter how you define "fair trial," he didn't stand a chance of winning, unless the jurors all wore Swastika armbands.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Feb 24, 2013 11:48:32 GMT -5
While it would be nice (and impossible) to ensure no pre-trial comments about evidence, etc. there is no strong reason to assume that such comments have any effect on the jurors that are chosen. Even less is it likely that a "circus atmosphere" will affect whether a trial is "fair" . The critical components for a fair trial is an intelligent panel of jurors and competent representation of both sides, and a competent judge. It is typical human nature for a juror in a capital case to want to be convinced before voting a death sentence. Does anyone seriously believe that a juror's vote is going to be determined by whether there are peanut vendors outside the courthouse? Anyone seriously interested in determining the fairness of a trial would read the court transcripts and, hopefully, the juror comments after the trial is over. That is how one goes about determining "fairness." The juror comments cited the ransom note handwriting, the rail 16 evidence, and Hauptmann's sudden, inexplicable, wealth. They could easily have added Hauptmann's implausible explanations, his post-crime injured leg, his lack of believable alibis for all the dates in question, his almost ridiculously inane claims about Frisch, a conveniently dead acquaintance, as well as other incriminating details. Based on all this, I claim that any trial that set Hauptmann free could not possibly have been fair.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 24, 2013 17:36:33 GMT -5
Good grief, Arthur 45! And with the whole world screaming for blood! What sterling masses you seem to see.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 5, 2015 21:19:20 GMT -5
After rereading Lloyd Gardner's book, "The Case that Never Dies," I am shocked at some of the gross violations of defendant Hauptmann's civil liberties (by today's standards) which occurred during the trial procedures and going all the way back to the Hauptmann arrest. Admittedly, I don't think that Hauptmann was anywhere near Hopewell at the time of the alleged kidnapping, but regardless of how one feels about his culpability or lack thereof in this case, there seems to have been a bunch of things that went down that I know are considered illegal today and hopefully have no place in the criminal justice system anymore.
Reading snippets of Wilentz's summation to the jury is absolutely chilling to any American with a sense of the protections afforded by the Constitution. "Please don't get the idea that the State has got to prove everything that it starts out to prove, everything beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a joke." (Gardner quoting Wilentz from the trial transcript.) Well, it's well ingrained in American crimanal law that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is what the prosecution must achieve in order for the jury to convict. When the charge carries a possible death penalty, that standard, if anything, should be even more meaningful. Yet Wilentz just rides roughshod over it (probably because he knows his case can't meet the standard). Then he insinuates that to deliver a NOT GUILTY verdict (regardless of whether or not he has proved Hauptmann's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) would be even a worse crime than the one Hauptmann was alleged to have committed. And Wilentz's ad hominem attacks on Hauptmann went far beyond what he was capable of proving in the courtroom.
The judge just sat by without saying a word to put Wilentz in his place. Then, in charging the jury, he clearly expressed his opinion that the defendant was guilty as charged, even mocking the defense attorney's summation. (In today's criminal procedure, attorneys for both prosecution and defense have the opportunity to review and question the judge in his chambers and to suggest changes in the jury's instructions before the charging instructions to the jury are given in open court.) If the judge was obviously so biased in favor of the prosecution in his instructions to the jury, the result of the jury deliberations were pretty much predetermined, because the vast majority of the common folk jurors don't want to antagonize the most respected figure in the courtroom. In short, to borrow a boxing analogy, the judge, who should be the referee, was holding the arms of one of the fighters so that his opponent could punch him whenever and wherever that opponent chose. This alone an anathema to the concept of a fair trial, yet there were other procedural abuses preceding it, most importantly, the lack of adequate discovery materials made available to the defense.
In spite of the many flaws in Reilly's subpar performance, he was given a generally raw deal, and he didn't even care about it. The most conscientious lawyer in the whole trial was neither Wilintz, nor Reilly, but Lloyd Fisher, who went on to become Hauptmann's chief appellate lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jan 6, 2015 11:02:01 GMT -5
reillys supporting cast didn't do a great job either. when you look at the Hauptman trial you have to focus on the evidence that convicted him
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2015 10:39:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 6, 2015 12:03:58 GMT -5
My interpretation of the Wilentz-Reilly photo posted by amy35 would depend somewhat on the EXACT DATE the photo was taken. If it was taken AFTER Hauptmann's conviction, as Amy says, then surely it would be evidence to the effect that Reilly was compromised or corrupt in his defense of Hauptmann, or so inebriated that he wasn't aware of the possible implications of such a photo. On the other hand, if the photo was posed and taken BEFORE THE TRIAL, one would tend to cut Reilly more slack.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Dec 6, 2015 14:48:40 GMT -5
Even by 1935 legal and courtroom standards, Wilentz was allowed liberties above and beyond. As Sidney Whipple wrote, his summation "made up in vituperation what it may have lacked in logical argument." On the other side of the same coin, you had a pathetic defendant who was obviously up to his neck in this crime yet had the ironclad will and determination to profess his total innocence until the end. Say what you will about a fair trial or not. Your legal system, like ours, is based upon Old English law, with its immediately confrontational template between prosecution and defense, which ultimately guarantees its inevitable failure. When you put that particular bias aside, justice was served at the end of this day. No, it doesn't answer the age-old question as to who else might have been involved. For that you can thank the law enforcement agencies, the prosecution and last but certainly not least, Hauptmann himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 15:14:22 GMT -5
FYI - Bruno Richard Hauptmann was convicted and sentenced to death on February 13th 1935. The photo is dated February 14, 1935.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 7, 2015 9:54:08 GMT -5
Even by 1935 legal and courtroom standards, Wilentz was allowed liberties above and beyond. As Sidney Whipple wrote, his summation "made up in vituperation what it may have lacked in logical argument." On the other side of the same coin, you had a pathetic defendant who was obviously up to his neck in this crime yet had the ironclad will and determination to profess his total innocence until the end. Say what you will about a fair trial or not. Your legal system, like ours, is based upon Old English law, with its immediately confrontational template between prosecution and defense, which ultimately guarantees its inevitable failure. When you put that particular bias aside, justice was served at the end of this day. No, it doesn't answer the age-old question as to who else might have been involved. For that you can thank the law enforcement agencies, the prosecution and last but certainly not least, Hauptmann himself. Agreed that "Wilentz was allowed liberties above and beyond." Wilentz knew he could get away with that because of the climate of public opinion stirred up by the media. A major factor as well was Reilly's less than vigorous defense of his client, which raises the suspicion that Reilly may have "taken a dive" in exchange for financial rewards from his benefactors. Excessive alcohol consumption may have also played a role in Reilly's poor performance. But I can't buy the statement that "justice was served at the end of this day." Hauptmann professed his total innocence. Maybe he was innocent, at least with respect to the charge of involvement with the death of CAL Jr. No credible eyewitness could put him in the vicinity of Hopewell on the day of the child's disappearance. His handwriting didn't match the writing on the ransom notes, regardless of what the paid off "handwriting experts" testified. It was impossible for CAL Sr. to identify him based on a couple of words uttered by "Cemetery John" years before, and Condon's ID of Hauptmann was extremely late and made under hard pressure from law enforcement. The wood evidence might have been planted in Hauptmann's attic after his arrest, when police had sole access to the premises for weeks. Hauptmann was certainly not a nice guy, and stubborn to the end, but the only solid evidence of his connection to the Lindbergh matter was the large chunk of ransom money he possessed. Possessing that money in gold certificates was certainly criminal at the time, but it does not in and of itself imply that Hauptmann went up the ladder and stole the child from the nursery, resulting in his death, which was the crux of Wilentz's capital case against him.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 13, 2015 0:07:36 GMT -5
Many accept the Hauptmann verdict for the same reason that law enforcement felt justified to withhold and fabricate evidence, tamper with witnesses and jury. The case needed to be closed for the good of society. The wrong must be righted.
Kidnapping needed to be evermore socially unacceptable, even by criminals, and to be deterred by the example of capital punishment to any would-be copycats. Besides, it was reasoned by all that Hauptmann could not have had clean hands. Even in the minuscule change he had 1/3 of the ransom yet zero involvement, he still was an illegal immigrant, WWI German machine gunner, burglar, mostly unemployed womanizer and a liar; no great loss to society.
In a sense the Hauptmann trial was the most easy to understand aspect of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2015 8:31:01 GMT -5
Besides, it was reasoned by all that Hauptmann could not have had clean hands. Even in the minuscule change he had 1/3 of the ransom yet zero involvement, he still was an illegal immigrant, WWI German machine gunner, burglar, mostly unemployed womanizer and a liar; no great loss to society. I am curious to know how you can conclude 1/3 of the ransom was "minuscule" as well as the position he had "zero" involvement. I can say with 100% certainty that while no one believed he acted alone, they all believed he was one of those who did. This idea they murdered an innocent guy simply to end the ordeal just isn't true. I will concede it may have been politics which led to his execution. Hoffman was obviously right that, in keeping him alive, we had a better chance of eventually bringing the rest to justice. That can't be done now of course, but I can reveal what the research tells us.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 13, 2015 11:50:51 GMT -5
What "politics"? The guy was convicted in a well publicized (not secret) trial by jury. He was given plenty of stays, free legal help that no one else would have gotten and had very important people whining about his "abused rights." Other perpetrators were implied but no evidence was ever presented that involved anyone but BRH. In fact if he wouldn't have passed that bill at the gas station, he possibly would have committed the perfect crime although his later spending patterns probably would have eventually sunk him.
He cost the taxpayers a bundle and I think the only politics were that the government wrongly felt he'd confess his part and name accomplices if faced with death. Anyone ever think perhaps there were no accomplices?
At any rate, no one would ever confess to any part of that crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2015 14:52:53 GMT -5
Politics meaning everyone knew others were involved. And so the decision to proceed with a Lone-Wolf prosecution put them in a position where they'd have to eat crow if what they knew to be true eventually came out. Wilentz gave Hauptmann an out, but it came with a time limit. Over the course of time the truth would have come out. And despite all the talk that certain things will never be known it's my position they are about to be.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 13, 2015 17:52:57 GMT -5
Michael, I meant to write: "chance", not change in the sentence: "Even in the minuscule CHANCE he had 1/3 of the ransom yet zero involvement, he still was an illegal immigrant, WWI German machine gunner, burglar, mostly unemployed womanizer and a liar; no great loss to society.
I freely acknowledge that the statistical likelihood that perpetrators would have allowed thousands in marked ransom bills float out of their control is a hard scenario to fathom. If Fisch was a perpetrator would he have left the money in a shoe box with a friend for safe keeping? Answer: Only if he knew he was to die. Even then its hard to see why he wouldn't have sold the money for $0.10 on the dollar before he sailed.
Actually, its hard to understand why Hauptmann would not have used that scenario as his Fisch story or later confession, even if it wasn't true. That would have supplied a plausible argument for his innocence as a kidnapper.
I agree with Jack that it's hard to imagine anyone confessing to the crime regardless to enticement. Gov. Hoffman made a dumb deal with Wilentz hoping for that.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 13, 2015 18:06:16 GMT -5
The letters from Pinkus Fisch asking about his bother's assets makes no sense under any simple scenario. Why would one want to direct their heirs to discover that you were the Lindbergh kidnapper by getting them caught handling your share of the ransom bundle? Of course, the Fisch family could have been lying about Isidore making a death bed reference to assets left in the USA, just fishing, excuse the pun.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2015 7:17:05 GMT -5
Anyone ever think perhaps there were no accomplices? For me there's about a zero percent chance of this. Everyone, from beginning to end, believed there was more then one person involved. Heck, just before the trial itself Foley was saying Hauptmann wasn't the only culprit. Wilentz had to go with the hand he was dealt then ran with it. It was all legal wrangling from jump-street just to get the Murder One charge. The death in the commission of a burglary (stealing the sleeping suit) I think pretty much proves it. Once committed to that there's no reversing yourself in public. That shouldn't have worked especially considering the Anne couldn't identify the suit, and Lindbergh even testified at the Curtis Trial he wasn't 100% sure it was the actual one. Of course, like everything else that seems to occur once in Flemington, Anne does identify it. What changed her mind I wonder?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 14, 2015 9:28:33 GMT -5
The only "evidence" there is that Fisch had anything to do with Hauptmann's Lindbergh money stash is from Hauptmann himself aside from a couple of questionable and not directly related comments from friends of Hauptmann. Even the "horrible - guilty of borrowing or scamming money?" Fisch probably would never leave a friend the worst of bad money without telling them what it was. Fisch was never convicted of a crime and none of the people he supposedly defrauded brought and legal action against him.
The Fisch story was really BRH's only alibi and probably he thought the authorities would just let things slide if they ever found the money, thinking Richard was just spending money owed to him.
Somehow Richard knew what the money was or he wouldn't have kept it in the garage.
The evidence of TLC all points in one direction and for over eighty years the crime has been looked at, and to no avail, competent investigators have tried to find it more complicated than has been proven to be.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 14, 2015 17:29:54 GMT -5
Free legal help is meaningless if your chief defense lawyer is as unconcerned about his client and/or is as incompetent as Edward Reilly was.
"Trial by jury"? Well, technically yes, but the jury consisted of a bunch of local yokels who lacked the intelligence and courage to sift out the large defects in the prosecution's case and the credibility deficiency in the prosecution's key witnesses. In addition, the judge's charge to the jury left no doubt as to his personal bias against the defendant.
The "politics" may not have been directly related to public officials trying to pander to their constituency, but when you have the all-American hero Charles Lindbergh on one side, and a recent immigrant from Germany (which had been the US's enemy in WWI and which was ruled by Hitler at the time) as the defendant, I'd say it was difficult for most observers (including the media) to be objective in their evaluation of the proceedings.
Wilentz knew he had a good thing going with the biased atmosphere, and went way overboard in his presentation, coming up with "facts" unsupported by a careful scrutiny of the evidence at hand, and with blistering personal attacks on Hauptmann. (Of course, one of the greatest of the numerous errors of the Hauptmann defense team was to permit the defendant to testify in his own behalf.) Wilentz took advantage of his spotlight appearance at the Hauptmann trial to go on to establish one of the most prominent law firms in the state, if not the country
In the end, justice was not served because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Hauptmann was in the vicinity of Highfields on the date and at the time when CAL Jr. purportedly was murdered. It is unjust to put a man to death for an offense other than a capital crime, even though he might be a scoundrel. Hauptmann was clearly guilty of hoarding gold certificates and very possibly of extortion, but at Flemington he was tried for the wrong crime.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 15, 2015 0:39:18 GMT -5
The prosecution admitted to no fingerprints or footprints. We know there were over 500 fingerprints from the ladder and dozens from the notes. There was a cast of CJ's footprint made by Condon. Presumably none of these could be skewed to matching Hauptmann more easily then drawing imaginary grain lines on two pieces or Carolina pine, one tongue and groove and one not. Simple crimes, given the most expensive analysis in history, don't come up empty on valid trace evidence.
No handwriting match to the JJ Faulkner deposit or connection to anyone investigated.
No fingerprints on the nursery note or in the nursery, (of anyone)?
|
|