Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Michael
Re: Bert Farrar
Wed Aug 8, 2018 08:56
2001:558:6027:18:6db1:35f3:150b:93a9

Script,

Be careful letting your mind wander. It was a pretty simple thing. I don't know, maybe I am so used to seeing this stuff (as it concerns this case) to the point that I am now desensitized to it all. Its everywhere, and since I know about most I plan on putting it in the next volume. It all needs to be presented in its entirety for the full undeniable impact it deserves.

Now look at what I said. The State put him on "ice" because they worried he might "flip." I appreciate that you want to look into this yourself before you believe it - and you should. Not just here but with everything because a LOT of what history records about this case in NOT supported by what's in the source documentation. It's why people who don't like what it says stay far away from the Archives and simply rely on those things they like (e.g. Trial Transcripts, FBI Summary, Fisher's books).

The trial was more like a Play on a stage. The FBI Summary is right in some places, half right in others, and wrong everywhere else. Fisher's first book relies on the barest of bones amount of actual Archival research and invented dialogue. According to his intro he made only four trips to the NJSP Archives and spent only three days going through the Hoffman Collection before writing it. So while there's some value in these sources, they are in no to be solely relied on. Everything must be looked at, then crossed referenced to see what the truth really was.

Now...

The first question to ask yourself is "would the State do this?" If you've done any unbiased research you'd see they absolutely would have.

The next question to ask is "whether or not they had an issue which might cause them any fear he could flip?" The answer is yes.

Like I said above, it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have they apparently weren't going to take any chances.

To answer your question Farrar was issued a subpoena.




  • Re: Bert FarrarMichael 5260, Tue Aug 7 14:47
    Something had to have happened for the prosecution to have been afraid that Farrar might change sides. If they had a fear of that happening in 1932, before there was any trial, they would have... more
    • Re: Bert Farrar — Michael, Wed Aug 8 08:56
      • Re: Bert FarrarMichael 5260, Wed Aug 8 10:27
        You are correct about the trial being a play on a stage. All hi-profile trials have a tendency to be that way. There is always the element of "theater" involved. I think this comes about because a... more
        • Re: Bert FarrarAnonymous, Wed Aug 8 13:21
          Farrar wanted to testify (if nothing else it would look great on his C.V. for future trials). Problem was that at this point, Wilentz did not trust what he would ultimately say on the stand. To solve ... more
          • david wilentz, may his name live in infamybob mills for anonymous and forum, Thu Aug 9 18:49
            Wilentz played a fast one on everybody. A permanent stain on New Jersey justice.
            • Re: david wilentz, may his name live in infamysteve for bob, Fri Aug 10 11:36
              don't forget he was tripping over evidence as somebody once said. don't blame wilentz for hauptmanns bad showing on the stand.
              • wilentzbob mills for steve romeo and forum, Fri Aug 10 18:58
                Steve, Hauptmann wasn't required to take the stand in his own defense. He did so voluntarily. If the trial were held today, Wilentz would have been scolded by the judge for misconduct. He might have... more
              • There's no question Wilentz took liberties as a prosecutor, but Hauptmann set himself up for everything he got by not coming clean.
            • And the irony is that we probably never would have heard of David Wilentz, had it not been for a mentally-ill German carpenter from the Bronx.
Click here to receive daily updates