Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Ronelle to 2602:306:3b94:e290:20a4:426e:148:d529
It was a sham
Tue May 16, 2017 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 have been enough for a successful appeal for mistrial.

Instead, the authors step back and observe - from a calm legal point of view - the strategies and methods used at Flemington.

I should actually read the book before I criticize it so harshly but I just don't understand how people aren't angry when they observe blatant injustice and unfairness in their own professions.

Why are certain professions - cops, lawyers, doctors, professors, politicians, so terrified of blowing the whistle on someone committing a crime or misbehaving according to the codes of that profession?

Even after 85 years lawyers, like the authors of this book, are still reluctant to condemn Flemington!?
How can that be? Even if you think Hauptmann was guilty it is obvious the law was fixed and set against him. Can't we all agree on that issue?

This is what makes Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning the greatest heroes in our history. Both are conservative minded American patriots who volunteered to invade Iraq but saw the wrongdoing and criminality of that effort and both have risked their lives to expose it.

I'm not saying the authors of this book are in that kind of category but certainly they could have denounced the "legal" way Hauptmann ended up dead.

  • 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 sham — Ronelle to 2602:306:3b94:e290:20a4:426e:148:d529, Tue May 16 19:03
      • 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!"
                  • hauptmann trialbob mills for ronelle and forum, Thu Jun 1 09:51
                    Maybe "perfect storm" would be a better description than "judicial lynching," which implies that Hauptmann was an innocent bystander. A cocky German defendant at a time (1935) of growing angst from... more
                    • perfectRonelle to Bob Mills, Sat Jun 3 06:26
                      "A perfect storm. And OK...a judicial lynching as well." So, maybe we can now refer to it as a "perfect judicial lynching storm" ? There were so many "perfect storms" against Hauptmann - all over the ... more
                    • lynchingRichard Sloan, Fri Jun 2 09:46
                      Nice summary, Bob. Well done. I'm in the middle of Melsky's book, and he is starting to show that there was evidence of a second person involved in the crime, and that the police and detectives'... more
              • 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
Click here to receive daily updates