Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Re: entitled opinions
Tue May 30, 2017 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 you also saying that people who were lynched were always, ipso facto, innocent? Interesting argument.

Very confusing.

So who do YOU think wrote the ransom letters? "Dot wust the worstest evidence against" him, right?

When BRH was convicted of breaking and entering the 2nd story home of the Mayor of Bernbruch (and sent to Prison), the German Court and Judge probably also "framed" him, right?

  • 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 opinions — Anonymous, Tue May 30 16:51
      • 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: lynchingsteve for mike, Tue Jun 6 09:58
                that's the problem I want to hear your personal conclusions
                • two?Richard, Wed Jun 7 09:15
                  I was never satisfied that one person did it. The hard evidence could be photos of all the footprints, which Mike discusses. But the cops screwed up by not taking pics of all of them and protecting... more
                  • Re: two?steve for rich, Sat Jun 10 10:26
                    you have to look at the end game. I see no hard evidence that he had help. your not going to count footprints and really think that was the key
                  • hauptmann alone?bob mills for richard and forum, Thu Jun 8 10:21
                    Hauptmann had 14K of ransom money in his garage. Unless we believe the "Fisch story," the only person who could have been a lone kidnapper was Hauptmann. Here are the reasons why that scenario... more
                    • Devil's Advocatejdb, Fri Jun 9 04:42
                      Bob, Excellent post, yet I have questions and some issues to raise, and to ask them I have to play the Devil's Advocate for a spell. Where to begin? Okay: The Lindberghs were never home at Hopewell... more
              • vol. 2 of Melsky'sRichard, Sun Jun 4 10:07
                Well, Mike, I look forward to vol.2. I assume you have reached a conclusion as to who dunnit and that you'll be revealing it in Vol.2. or maybe you'll only tell us that it's still not a sure thing.... 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