Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Michael 5260
Re: More
Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:57

Fisher may have believed Hauptmann was innocent at the very beginning but as Fisher found himself wading in incriminating evidence up to his armpits he had his personal legal epiphany.

What Fisher believed about associates, accomplices, etc., being involved in the crime isn't evidence. How do you cross-examine a belief and test its veracity? You can't.

Some people believe what they want to believe and they will do so without any hard evidence because proof is repugnant to them. The more proof that is brought forth that is contrary to the belief the more the evidence is ridiculed and rejected.

  • Re: MoreJoe, Wed Sep 26 09:16
    Remember that Hauptmann professed his complete innocence of any involvement in the crime to the same Lloyd Fisher. For Fisher to have told George Hawke that Hauptmann was guilty but believed he had... more
    • Re: More — Michael 5260, Wed Sep 26 10:57
      • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 08:02
        You speak as if you were actually walking in his shoes. The man had more access and the most amount of information concerning Hauptmann than anyone else. First thing is that his Lawyers were bound by ... more
        • Re: MoreMichael 5260, Thu Sep 27 13:55
          Three times this week I have heard John H. Wigmore quoted by attorneys: "Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." Wigmore was an American jurist and... more
          • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 14:19
            If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it - does it make a sound? If the answer is yes, then how in the hell can anyone cross examine facts they aren't aware of? So what you mean to ... more
            • Re: MoreMichael 5260, Thu Sep 27 16:19
              Our discussions have been about the evidence and the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann That is the focus. At least I think that is the focus. Curtis Transcripts, Means Transcripts, and Parker... more
              • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 19:09
                You are incorrect of both points. My discussions do not exclude anything relevant. Next, testimony from other related cases that contradict testimony in Flemington should not be ignored. Yet it is -... more
    • Re: MoreMichael, Wed Sep 26 10:10
      No it doesn't because it creates an assumption. From other documented sources we know that Fisher believed the following: 1. Hauptmann had involvement. 2. Hauptmann knew more. 3. Others were... more
      • Re: MoreJoe, Wed Sep 26 11:00
        You're splitting hairs here as it pertains to the bottom line, Michael. Does "Guilty as hell" imply to you that Hauptmann was believed to be a Lone Wolf? Most people would probably consider... more
        • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 07:49
          You might see it that way Joe but in the context of what he actually believed the single phrase "guilty as hell" is misleading when considering how this case has been perceived from one side or the... more
          • Re: MoreJoe, Sat Sep 29 07:17
            Perhaps you would have preferred Fisher had allegedly said something about one of the household having been involved.. would that have given the statement more credibility? This principle seems to... more
            • Re: MoreMichael, Sat Sep 29 08:15
              Perhaps what? This doesn't make any sense Joe. I've said all things must be considered. Once that's done then it is what it is. Shuman's account is not clear because no one asked him questions about... more
Click here to receive daily updates