Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Ronelle to Toronto Anonymous 204.52.135.130
What Trenchard said was "legal"
Thu May 18, 2017 12:42
2601:586:8004:2890:90af:a960:dd2a:95eb

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 and with a German translator for the defendant to express himself better - there might not be so much controversy today. Had the defense attorney not been a paid shill for Hearst's corporate media and had the jurors actually been properly sequestered maybe people wouldn't do so much complaining about this sham of a trial. But, Hauptmann was being framed to the hilt and no one cared.

My "obligation" to my "readers" is to remind them how easy it is for any one of us here in America to be swept up in "the madness of crowds" and to be murdered by "justice." If there are lawyers out there - perhaps yourself? - that want to tell me this was completely "legal" in 1935 I will accept that fact because it is probably true. Slavery was also legal once.

My "obligation" here - or anywhere else when discussing the "law" - is to remind everyone of this unfortunate fact. Innocent people in America can be incarcerated for a lifetime and also put to death based on mistaken "justice." Is there any better reason to finally abolish the death penalty?


  • 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
    • 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
        .....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