Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
the authors make it very clear.....
Tue May 16, 2017 01:53

..........that they are not interested in providing a theory of how or by whom this crime was committed. Neither are they passing judgment on the fairness of the trial - just letting you decide for yourself. They are presenting the trial from the perspective of instruction for law students on how to prosecute or defend a client.

Exactly what I said when I heard this book was $75.00 - it is a law school text book. I haven't read it yet but only skimmed. It analyzes the legal issues of the defense and prosecution.

Could be interesting for LKC case buffs to see what woulda coulda shoulda been done more "professionally" but unfortunately nothing of these authors opinions are going to be revealed - that is, if they have any personal opinions on it.

We'll never know because in order to SELL text books to schools in America you CANNOT write anything that would possibly upset someone!

That's why I love all the posters here - and Melsky's board too - none of us is capable of writing a book that wouldn't make someone angry.

  • Re: About the Dekle - Dedman booksteve for ronelle , Mon May 15 09:41
    hi ronelle great to see you on the tour. I think the book is on the study of just the trial, I met dedman at the Lindbergh house years ago.
    • the authors make it very clear..... — Ronelle, Tue May 16 01:53
      • Dekle and DedmanAnonymous, Tue May 16 16:48
        If you are not interested in how the kidnapping story played out in court and how the lawyers on both sides did, then this may not be the book for you. Others interested in how various arguments... more
        • Your "Anonymous" IP addressRonelle to 2602:306:3b94:e290:20a4:426e:148:d529, Tue May 16 19:12
          I am using your IP address to reply to your posts because I figured out there have been several Anonymous people here over the years and the only way to tell them apart is by their IP addresses. So... more
        • It was a shamRonelle to 2602:306:3b94:e290:20a4:426e:148:d529, Tue May 16 19:03
          Hauptmann's trial was an obvious sham and I think the authors of this book HAD to have known this - even before they wrote a single word. Trenchard's advice to the jury "Do you believe that?!" should ... more
          • TrenchardAnonymous, Wed May 17 06:51
            "...unfairness in their own professions." You manage a discussion site on the Internet. Do you feel any obligation to report to your readers that the New Jersey Supreme Court said that what Trenchard ... more
            • What Trenchard said was "legal"Ronelle to Toronto Anonymous, Thu May 18 12:42
              That's why so many of us are angry - even those that believe Hauptmann had something to do with the crime. Had this trial been fairly conducted - especially in a different city unrelated to the crime ... more
            • trencherbob mills for forum, Wed May 17 18:37
              I can't agree on that. Trenchad outlined Hauptmann's alibi, then asked the jury, "Do you believe that?" Translation for any breathing human being..."I don't believe that, and you shouldn't either."... more
              • But, the lawyers have been telling us.....Ronelle to Bob Mills, Thu May 18 12:51
       was all "legal." Trenchard, evidently, had the "legal" right to warn the jurors that Hauptmann was a "liar"?! Unbelievable. Thus, no grounds for retrial. I guess it depends on which lawyer is ... more
              • TrenchardAnonymous, Thu May 18 09:16
                You and anyone else are entitled to an opinion. You should, however, condition that opinion by admitting the history. In 1935 in New Jersey what Trenchard did was not illegal or considered unfair. It ... more
                • entitled opinionsRonelle to TEXAS Anonymous 2602:306:3b94:e290:c45c, Thu May 18 13:08
                  Yes, you are right TEXAS Anonymous. Everyone should be entitled to an opinion EXCEPT for a COURT JUDGE at a murder TRIAL. As I keep saying, it might have been "legal" but it was still a lynching.... more
                  • Re: entitled opinionsAnonymous, Tue May 30 16:51
                    " it was still a lynching. Those were once legal too, you know? " I never knew that "lynchings were legal" !!! Where does it say that? Just because they happened doesn't mean they were "legal." Are... more
                    • lynchinganother anonymous, Wed May 31 08:29
                      Are you serious? It's not at all confusing!Don't you understand what was meant by that?! It's like saying "They might as well have taken him out of his cell and lynched him." In other words, that... more
                    • alan dershowitzRonelle, Wed May 31 01:51
                      Since you don't like MY opinion you might be surprised by Alan Dershowitz' opinion from a TV segment on this case - that Hauptmann's trial "was a judicial lynching!"
                  • Re: entitled opinionsMichael For Ronelle, Thu May 18 19:41
                    If a tree falls in the woods, and there's a 1911 case that would allow for the testimony in a 1935 trial that it does not - do you care? I sure as hell don't. Perhaps other lawyers would enjoy that... more
    • who is that guy?Ronelle to Steve, Tue May 16 00:27
      Just finished watching an old VCR cassette recording of the case made for TV in the late 80s. You gave this to me many years ago - thanks so much! Anyway, there is a guy interviewed in it whose name... more
Click here to receive daily updates