Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
bob mills for forum
trencher
Wed May 17, 2017 18:37
173.170.204.117

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."

Trencher was a disaster behind the bench. His conduct of the trial, in and of itself, should have been grounds to invalidate the entire trial.


  • 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 204.52.135.130, 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
    • trencher — bob mills for forum, Wed May 17 18:37
      • But, the lawyers have been telling us.....Ronelle to Bob Mills, Thu May 18 12:51
        .....it 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 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