Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Wed May 17, 2017 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 said was legal? The ruling must be like "The Purloined Letter". Even though it's been there in plain sight for over 70 years, you just overlooked it. Trenchard's statement and later qualification was not enough for a successful appeal.

As you say, "Can we all agree on that?".

  • 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
    • Trenchard — Anonymous, Wed May 17 06:51
      • 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: lynchingsteve for rich, Tue Jun 6 09:56
                      i never saw hard evidence that there was two people. people were trying to connect somebody for years
                    • Re: lynchingMichael For Richard, Sat Jun 3 08:13
                      Richard, The frustrating part is that I had 3 editors. The last guy even corrected my footnotes! Of course that took me days to reverse. However, in the end, the publisher did not print the final... 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